document_title: On Golden Pond (1981 film)

question_text: where was the movie on golden pond filmed

text: On Golden Pond (1981 film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: An aging couple, Ethel and Norman Thayer, continue the long tradition of spending each summer at their cottage on a lake called Golden Pond, in the far reaches of northern New England. When they first arrive, Ethel notices the loons calling on the lake "welcoming them home". As they resettle into their summer home, Norman's memory problems arise when he is unable to recognize several family photographs, which he copes with by frequently talking about death and growing old. They are visited by their only child, a daughter, Chelsea, who is somewhat estranged from her curmudgeon of a father. She introduces her parents to her fiancé Bill and his thirteen-year-old son Billy. Norman tries to play mind games with Bill, an apparent pastime of his, but Bill won't hear of it, saying he can only take so much. In another conversation, Chelsea discusses with Ethel her frustration over her relationship with her overbearing father, feeling that even though she lives thousands of miles away in Los Angeles, she still feels like she's answering to him. Before they depart for a European vacation, Chelsea and Bill ask the Thayers to permit Billy to stay with them while they have some time to themselves. Norman, seeming more senile and cynical than usual due to his 80th birthday and heart palpitations, agrees to Billy's staying. Ethel tells him that he's the sweetest man in the world, but she is the only one who knows it.

text: Billy is at first annoyed by being left with elderly strangers with no friends nearby and nothing to do. He resents Norman's brusque manner, but eventually comes to enjoy their Golden Pond fishing adventures together. Billy and Norman soon grow obsessed with catching Norman's fish rival, named "Walter", which leads to the accidental destruction of the Thayers' motorboat. Chelsea returns to find out her father has made good friends with her fiance's, now husband's, son. But when she sees the change in her father's demeanor, Chelsea attempts something Billy accomplished that she never could: a backflip. Chelsea successfully executes the dive in front of a cheering Norman, Billy, and Ethel. Chelsea and Norman finally fully embrace before she departs with Billy back home.

text: The final day on Golden Pond comes and the Thayers are loading the last of the boxes. Norman tries to move a heavy box, but starts having heart pain and collapses onto the floor of the porch. Ethel tries unsuccessfully to get the operator to phone the hospital. Norman then says the pain is gone and attempts to stand to say a final farewell to the lake. Ethel tells him she has always known about death but for the first time it felt real, thinking Norman was going to die on the spot. Ethel helps Norman to the edge of the lake where they see the loons and Norman notes how they are just like him and Ethel, that their offspring is grown and gone off on her own, and now it is just the two of them.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Dabney Coleman – Bill Ray
Katharine Hepburn – Ethel Thayer
Henry Fonda – Norman Thayer Jr.
Jane Fonda – Chelsea Thayer Wayne
William Lanteau – Charlie Martin
Doug McKeon – Billy Ray
Christopher Rydell – Sumner Todd

text: Production[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Jane Fonda purchased the rights to the play specifically for her father, Henry Fonda, to play the role of the cantankerous Norman Thayer.[3] The father-daughter rift depicted on screen closely paralleled the real-life relationship between the two Fondas.

text: Screenwriter Thompson spent his summers along the shores of Great Pond, located in Belgrade, Maine, but the film was made on Squam Lake in Holderness, New Hampshire.[4] The house used in the film was leased from a New York physician and was modified significantly for the shoot: an entire second floor was added as a balcony over the main living area at the request of the production designer. After the shoot, the production company was contractually obligated to return the house to its original state but the owner liked the renovations so much that he elected to keep the house that way and asked the crew not to dismantle the second story. A gazebo and a small boathouse were also relocated during the shoot.

text: Despite their many common acquaintances and long careers in show business, Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn not only had never worked together, but had never met until working on the film. On the first day of shooting, Hepburn presented Henry Fonda with her longtime companion Spencer Tracy's "lucky" hat, which Fonda wore in the film. Hepburn, who was 74 at the time of filming, performed all her own stunts, including a dive into the pond. The scene in which Norman and step-grandson Billy run their boat into the rocks was filmed repeatedly. The vintage 1951 mahogany Chris-Craft boat, used strictly for the crash scene, was so sturdy that it kept bouncing off the rocks without any damage.[5][6][7] The crew had to modify the boat so it would break away in the wreck. The water level in Squam Lake was so low during the summer of production that Fonda and Doug McKeon could have stood during the scene in which they were supposedly clinging to the rocks for fear of drowning. The September water was barely knee-deep, but it was cold enough that the pair had to wear wetsuits under their clothes. Hepburn, on the other hand, dove into the water without the aid of the wetsuit because she wanted the scene to keep its authenticity. Some of the scenes in which Billy takes the boat out on his own were filmed on nearby Lake Winnipesaukee. While filming the scene where Fonda and Hepburn were watching the loons on the lake, the speedboat that zoomed by and disturbed them was so forceful it overturned their canoe in one take; Fonda was immediately taken out of the water and wrapped up in blankets as his health was fragile by that time. The speedboat was piloted by the screenwriter, Ernest Thompson.

text: When visiting Holderness, New Hampshire, one can take a boat tour of Squam Lake and view the filming sites from the movie. There is also a restaurant called "Walter's Basin", which is named after the trout called "Walter" that Billy catches with Norman. For filming, "Walter" was brought in from a trout pond at the nearby Castle in the Clouds estate. He was released after his capture back into Squam Lake. Leftover footage of Fonda and Hepburn driving through the New Hampshire countryside, as seen in the opening credits, was later used for the opening of the CBS television sitcom Newhart.

text: The studio behind the film was ITC Entertainment, the British company presided over (until late 1981) by Lord Grade, the television and film mogul. It was Grade who largely raised the financing for the film.

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: With a box office take of $119,285,432, On Golden Pond was the second-highest grossing film of the year, following Raiders of the Lost Ark, which earned $209,562,121.[8]

text: Critical Reception[edit]

text:
On Golden Pond garnered widespread critical acclaim with critics highlighting the performances of Katharine Hepburn and Henry Fonda.
The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an approval rating of 92% based on 386 reviews, with an average rating of 8.7/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "There's little that happens in On Golden Pond that isn't thoroughly predictable from the start, but the film is blessed with so much star power, charm and honest sentiment that everyone in the audience is willing to ignore the cliches and go the distance."
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times said "On Golden Pond was a treasure for many reasons, but the best one, I think, is that I could believe it. I could believe in its major characters and their relationships, and in the things they felt for one another, and there were moments when the movie was witness to human growth and change. I left the theater feeling good and warm, and with a certain resolve to try to mend my own relationships and learn to start listening better . . . watching the movie, I felt I was witnessing something rare and valuable."[9]

text: In his The New York Times review, Vincent Canby said, "As a successful Broadway play, On Golden Pond was processed American cheese, smooth, infinitely spreadable and bland, with color added by the actors . . . the movie . . . still American cheese, but its stars – Henry Fonda, Katharine Hepburn, Jane Fonda and Dabney Coleman – add more than color to this pasteurized product. On Golden Pond now has the bite of a good old cheddar . . . Mr. Fonda gives one of the great performances of his long, truly distinguished career. Here is film acting of the highest order . . . Miss Hepburn . . . is also in fine form. One of the most appealing things about her as an actress is the way she responds to – and is invigorated by – a strong co-star . . . she needs someone to support, challenge and interact with. Mr. Fonda is the best thing that's happened to her since Spencer Tracy and Humphrey Bogart . . . an added pleasure is the opportunity to see Dabney Coleman [in] a role that goes beyond the caricatures he's usually given to play . . . On Golden Pond is a mixed blessing, but it offers one performance of rare quality and three others that are very good. That's not half-bad."[10]

text: TV Guide rates it 3 ½ out of a possible four stars, calling it "a beautifully photographed movie filled with poignancy, humor, and (of course) superb acting . . . there could have been no finer final curtain for [Henry Fonda] than this."[11] Channel 4 sums up its review by stating, "Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn both shine in an impressively executed Hollywood drama. [It] has its mawkish moments but there's a certain pleasure in that, and writer Thompson's analysis of old age is sensitive, thought-provoking and credible."[12]

text: Not all reviewers were impressed, however.  David Kehr of the Chicago Reader called the film "the cinematic equivalent of shrink-wrapping, in which all of the ideas, feelings, characters, and images are neatly separated and hermetically sealed to prevent spoilage, abrasion, or any contact with the natural world . . . Mark Rydell's bright, banal visual style further sterilizes the issues. The film exudes complacency and self-congratulation; it is a very cowardly, craven piece of ersatz art."[13] Time Out London says, "Two of Hollywood's best-loved veterans deserved a far better swan song than this sticky confection."[14] Mad magazine satirized the film as On Olden Pond.

text: American Film Institute recognition

text:
AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies – Nominated[15]
AFI's 100 Years... 100 Passions – No. 22
AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes:
"Listen to me, mister. You're my knight in shining armor. Don't you forget it. You're going to get back on that horse, and I'm going to be right behind you, holding on tight, and away we're gonna go, go, go!" – #88
"Come here, Norman. Hurry up. The loons! The loons! They're welcoming us back." – Nominated[16]
AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores – #24
AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers – #45
AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) – Nominated[17]

text: Accolades[edit]

text:
Award

Date of ceremony

Category

Recipients and nominees

Result

Academy Awards[18]

March 29, 1982

Best Picture

Bruce Gilbert

Nominated

Best Director

Mark Rydell

Nominated

Best Actor

Henry Fonda

Won

Best Actress

Katharine Hepburn

Won

Best Supporting Actress

Jane Fonda

Nominated

Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Ernest Thompson

Won

Best Cinematography

Billy Williams

Nominated

Best Editing

Robert L. Wolfe

Nominated

Best Original Score

Dave Grusin

Nominated

Best Sound

Richard Portman and David M. Ronne

Nominated

text:
Award

Date of ceremony

Category

Recipients and nominees

Result

BAFTA Awards[19]

March 20, 1983

Best Film

Bruce Gilbert

Nominated

Best Director

Mark Rydell

Nominated

Best Actor

Henry Fonda

Nominated

Best Actress

Katharine Hepburn

Won

Best Supporting Actress

Jane Fonda

Nominated

Best Screenplay

Ernest Thompson

Nominated

text:
Award

Date of ceremony

Category

Recipients and nominees

Result

Golden Globe Awards[20]

January 30, 1982

Best MotionPicture-Drama

Bruce Gilbert

Won

Best Director

Mark Rydell

Nominated

Best Actor

Henry Fonda

Won

Best Actress

Katharine Hepburn

Nominated

Best Supporting Actress

Jane Fonda

Nominated

Best Screenplay

Ernest Thompson

Won

text:
Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures (nominee)
Grammy Award for Best Album of Original Score Written for a Motion Picture or Television Special (nominee)
Writers Guild of America Award for Best Drama Adapted from Another Medium (winner)


document_title: Tariffs in United States history

question_text: in the 1930s what caused canada to respond by raising tax on goods imported from the united states

question_tokens: in the 1930s what caused canada to respond by raising tax on goods imported from the united states

root

text: Tariffs in United States history

text: History[edit]

text: According to Michael Lind, protectionism was America's de facto policy from the passage of the Tariff of 1816 to World War II, "switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out" by the war.[8]. It has been argued that one of the underlying motivations for the American Revolution itself was a desire to industrialize, and reverse the trade deficit with Britain, which had grown by a factor of ten in the space of a few decades, from £67,000 (1721–30) to £739,000 (1761–70).[9]

tag: p

text: According to Paul Bairoch, since the end of the 18th century, the United States has been "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism". In fact, the United States never adhered to free trade until 1945. A very protectionist policy was adopted as soon as the presidency of George Washington by Alexander Hamilton, the first US Secretary of the Treasury from 1789 to 1795 and author of the text Report on Manufactures which called for customs barriers to allow American industrial development and to help protect infant industries, including bounties (subsidies) derived in part from those tariffs. This text was one of the references of the German economist Friedrich List (1789–1846). The United States has become the main opposition to free trade and this policy remained throughout the 19th century and the overall level of tariffs was very high (close to 50% in 1830). The victory of the protectionist states of the North over the free trade southern states at the end of the Civil War (1861–1865) perpetuated this trend, even during periods of free trade in Europe (1860–1880).[10]

text: Hamilton explained that despite an initial "increase of price" caused by regulations that control foreign competition, once a "domestic manufacture has attained to perfection… it invariably becomes cheaper." George Washington signed the Tariff Act of 1789, making it the Republic's second ever piece of legislation. Increasing the domestic supply of manufactured goods, particularly war materials, was seen as an issue of national security. Washington and Hamilton believed that political independence was predicated upon economic independence.[11]

text: In the 19th century, statesmen such as Senator Henry Clay continued Hamilton's themes within the Whig Party under the name "American System." The fledgling Republican Party led by Abraham Lincoln, who called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig", strongly opposed free trade, and implemented a 44-percent tariff during the Civil War—in part to pay for railroad subsidies and for the war effort, and to protect favored industries.[12]

text: From 1871 to 1913, "the average U.S. tariff on dutiable imports never fell below 38 percent [and] gross national product (GNP) grew 4.3 percent annually, twice the pace in free trade Britain and well above the U.S. average in the 20th century," notes Alfred Eckes Jr., chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission under President Reagan.

text: In 1896, the GOP platform pledged to "renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence, and the foundation of development and prosperity. This true American policy taxes foreign products and encourages home industry. It puts the burden of revenue on foreign goods; it secures the American market for the American producer. It upholds the American standard of wages for the American workingman."

text: Support among American politicians[edit]

text: George Washington[edit]

text: "I use no porter or cheese in my family, but such as is made in America," the inaugural President George Washington wrote, boasting that these domestic products are "of an excellent quality."

text: One of the first acts of Congress Washington signed was a tariff among whose stated purpose was "the encouragement and protection of manufactures."

text: In his 1790 State of the Union Address, Washington justified his tariff policy for national security reasons:

text: A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies[13]

text: Thomas Jefferson[edit]

text: As President Thomas Jefferson wrote in explaining why his views had evolved to favor more protectionist policies: "In so complicated a science as political economy, no one axiom can be laid down as wise and expedient for all times and circumstances, and for their contraries."

text: After the War of 1812, Jefferson's position began to resemble that of Washington, some level of protection was necessary to secure the nation's political independence. He said:

text: experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort: and if those who quote me as of a different opinion will keep pace with me in purchasing nothing foreign where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained, without regard to difference of price[14]

text: Henry Clay[edit]

text: In 1832, then the United States Senator from Kentucky, Henry Clay said about his disdain for "free traders"[9] that "it is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it will lead substantially to the re-colonization of these States, under the commercial dominion of Great Britain."

text: Clay said:

text: When gentlemen have succeeded in their design of an immediate or gradual destruction of the American System, what is their substitute? Free trade! Free trade! The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, in its nurse's arms, for the moon, or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven. It never has existed; it never will exist. Trade implies, at least two parties. To be free, it should be fair, equal and reciprocal.

text: Clay explained that "equal and reciprocal" free trade "never has existed; [and] it never will exist." He warned against practicing "romantic trade philanthropy… which invokes us to continue to purchase the produce of foreign industry, without regard to the state or prosperity of our own." Clay made clear that he was "utterly and irreconcilably opposed" to trade which would "throw wide open our ports to foreign productions" without reciprocation.

text: Andrew Jackson[edit]

text: Henry Clay's longtime rival and political opponent, President Andrew Jackson, in explaining his support for a tariff, wrote:

text: We have been too long subject to the policy of the British merchants. It is time we should become a little more Americanized, and, instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of Europe, feed our own, or else, in a short time, by continuing our present policy, we shall all be paupers ourselves.

text: James Monroe[edit]

text: In 1822, President James Monroe observed that "whatever may be the abstract doctrine in favor of unrestricted commerce," the conditions necessary for its success—reciprocity and international peace—"has never occurred and can not be expected." Monroe said, "strong reasons… impose on us the obligation to cherish and sustain our manufactures."

text: Abraham Lincoln[edit]

text: President Abraham Lincoln declared, "Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth." Lincoln warned that "the abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government… must produce want and ruin among our people."

text: Lincoln similarly said that, "if a duty amount to full protection be levied upon an article" that could be produced domestically, "at no distant day, in consequence of such duty," the domestic article "will be sold to our people cheaper than before."

text: Additionally, Lincoln argued that based on economies of scale, any temporary increase in costs resulting from a tariff would eventually decrease as the domestic manufacturer produced more.

text: Lincoln did not see a tariff as a tax on low-income Americans because it would only burden the consumer according to the amount the consumer consumed. By the tariff system, the whole revenue is paid by the consumers of foreign goods… the burthen of revenue falls almost entirely on the wealthy and luxurious few, while the substantial and laboring many who live at home, and upon home products, go entirely free.

text: Lincoln argued that a tariff system was less intrusive than domestic taxation: The tariff is the cheaper system, because the duties, being collected in large parcels at a few commercial points, will require comparatively few officers in their collection; while by the direct tax system, the land must be literally covered with assessors and collectors, going forth like swarms of Egyptian locusts, devouring every blade of grass and other green thing.[15]

text: William McKinley[edit]

text: President William McKinley stated the United States' stance under the Republican Party as:

text: Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man[16]. [It is said] that protection is immoral.... Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefiting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, 'Buy where you can buy the cheapest'.... Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: 'Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.[17]

text: [Free trade] destroys the dignity and independence of American labor… It will take away from the people of this country who work for a living—and the majority of them live by the sweat of their faces—it will take from them heart and home and hope. It will be self-destruction.[18]

text: He also rejected the "cheaper is better" argument outright:

text: They [free traders] say, 'Buy where you can buy the cheapest.' That is one of their maxims… Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: 'Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.

text: They say, if you had not the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or whether it is dear depends on what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer.

text: The protective tariff policy of the Republicans… has made the lives of the masses of our countrymen sweeter and brighter, and has entered the homes of America carrying comfort and cheer and courage. It gives a premium to human energy, and awakens the noblest aspiration in the breasts of men. Our own experience shows that it is the best for our citizenship and our civilization and that it opens up a higher and better destiny for our people.[19]

text: Theodore Roosevelt[edit]

text: President Theodore Roosevelt believed that America's economic growth was due to the protective tariffs, which helped her industrialize. He acknowledged this in his State of the Union address from 1902:

text: The country has acquiesced in the wisdom of the protective-tariff principle. It is exceedingly undesirable that this system should be destroyed or that there should be violent and radical changes therein. Our past experience shows that great prosperity in this country has always come under a protective tariff.[20]

text: Colonial Era to 1789[edit]

text: In the colonial era, before 1775, nearly every colony levied its own tariffs, usually with lower rates for British products. There were taxes on ships (on a tonnage basis), import taxes on slaves, export taxes on tobacco, and import taxes on alcoholic beverages.[21] The London government insisted on a policy of mercantilism whereby only British ships could trade in the colonies. In defiance, some American merchants engaged in smuggling.[22][23]

text: During the Revolution, the British blockade from 1775 to 1783 largely ended foreign trade. In the 1783–89 period, each state set up its own trade rules, often imposing tariffs or restrictions on neighboring states. The new Constitution, which went into effect in 1789, banned interstate tariffs or trade restrictions, as well as state taxes on exports.[24]

text: Early National period, 1789–1828[edit]

text: The framers of the United States Constitution gave the federal government authority to tax, stating that Congress has the power to "... lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." and also "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Tariffs between states is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and all domestically made products can be imported or shipped to another state tax-free.

text: Responding to an urgent need for revenue and a trade imbalance with England that was fast destroying the infant American industries and draining the nation of its currency, the First United States Congress passed, and President George Washington signed, the Hamilton Tariff of 1789, which authorized the collection of duties on imported goods. Customs duties as set by tariff rates up to 1860 were usually about 80–95% of all federal revenue. Having just fought a war over taxation (among other things) the U.S. Congress wanted a reliable source of income that was relatively unobtrusive and easy to collect. It also sought to protect the infant industries that had developed during the war but which were now threatened by cheaper imports, especially from England. Tariffs and excise taxes were authorized by the United States Constitution and recommended by the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton in 1789 to tax foreign imports and set up low excise taxes on whiskey and a few other products to provide the Federal Government with enough money to pay its operating expenses and to redeem at full value U.S. Federal debts and the debts the states had accumulated during the Revolutionary War. The Congress set low excise taxes on only a few goods, such as, whiskey, rum, tobacco, snuff and refined sugar. The tax on whiskey was highly controversial and set of massive protests by Western Farmers in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, which was suppressed by General Washington at the head of an army. The whiskey excise tax collected so little and was so despised it was abolished by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802.[25]

text: All tariffs were on a long list of goods (dutiable goods) with different customs rates and some goods on a "free" list. Congress spent enormous amounts of time figuring out these tariff import tax schedules.

text: With tariffs providing the basic federal revenue, an embargo on trade, or an enemy blockade, would threaten havoc. This happened in connection with the American economic warfare against Britain in the 1807–15 period. In 1807 imports dropped by more than half and some products became much more expensive or unobtainable. Congress passed the Embargo Act of 1807 and the Non-Intercourse Act (1809) to punish British and French governments for their actions; unfortunately their main effect was to reduce imports even more. The War of 1812 brought a similar set of problems as U.S. trade was again restricted by British naval blockades. The fiscal crisis was made much worse by the abolition of the First Bank of the U.S., which was the national bank. It was reestablished right after the war.[26]

text: The lack of imported goods relatively quickly gave very strong incentives to start building several U.S. industries in the Northeast. Textiles and machinery especially grew. Many new industries were set up and run profitably during the wars and about half of them failed after hostilities ceased and normal imports resumed. Industry in the U.S. was advancing up the skill set, innovation knowledge and organization curve.

text: The Tariff Act of 1789 imposed the first national source of revenue for the newly formed United States. The new U.S. Constitution ratified in 1789, allowed only the federal government to levy uniform tariffs. Only the federal government could set tariff rates (customs), so the old system of separate state rates disappeared. The new law taxed all imports at rates from 5 to 15 percent. These rates were primarily designed to generate revenue to pay the annual expenses of the federal government and the national debt and the debts the states had accumulated during the American War of Independence and to also promote manufactures and independence from foreign nations, especially for defense needs. Hamilton believed that all Revolutionary War debt should be paid in full to establish and keep U.S. financial credibility. In addition to income in his Report on Manufactures Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed a far-reaching plan to use protective tariffs as a lever for rapid industrialization. In the late 18th century the industrial age was just starting and the United States had little or no textile industry—the heart of the early Industrial Revolution. The British government having just lost the Revolutionary War tried to maintain their near monopoly on cheap and efficient textile manufacturing by prohibiting the export of textile machines, machine models or the emigration of people familiar with these machines. Clothing in the early United States was nearly all hand made by a very time consuming and expensive process—just like it had been made for centuries before. The new textile manufacturing techniques in Britain were often over thirty times cheaper as well as being easier to use, more efficient and productive. Hamilton believed that a stiff tariff on imports would not only raise income but "protect" and help subsidize early efforts at setting up manufacturing facilities that could compete with British products.[27]

text: Samuel Slater in 1789 emigrated (illegally since he was familiar with textile manufacturing) from Britain. Looking for opportunities he heard of the failing attempts at making cotton mills in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Contacting the owners he promised to see if he could fix their mills—they offered him a full partnership if he succeeded. Declaring their early attempts unworkable he proceeded from January 1790 to December 1790 to build the first operational textile manufacturing facility in the United States. The Industrial Revolution was off and running in the United States. Initially the cost of their textiles was slightly higher than the cost of equivalent British goods but the tariff helped protect their early start-up industry.[28]

text: The high protectionism tariffs Hamilton originally called for were not adopted until after the War of 1812, when nationalists such as Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun saw the need for more federal income and more industry. In wartime, they declared, having a home industry was a necessity to avoid shortages. Likewise owners of the small new factories that were springing up in the northeast to mass-produce boots, hats, nails and other common items wanted higher tariffs that would significantly protect them for a time from more efficient British producers. A 10% discount on the customs tax was offered on items imported in American ships, so that the American merchant marine would be supported.[29]

text: Once industrialization and mass production started, the demand for higher and higher tariffs came from manufacturers and factory workers. They believed that their businesses should be protected from the lower wages and more efficient factories of Britain and the rest of Europe. Nearly every northern Congressman was eager to logroll a higher tariff rate for his local industry. Senator Daniel Webster, formerly a spokesperson for Boston's merchants who imported goods (and wanted low tariffs), switched dramatically to represent the manufacturing interests in the Tariff of 1824. Rates were especially high for bolts of cloth and for bar iron, of which Britain was a low-cost producer. The culmination came in the Tariff of 1828, ridiculed by free traders as the "Tariff of Abominations", with import custom duties averaging over 25 percent. Intense political opposition to higher tariffs came from Southern Democrats and plantation owners in South Carolina who had little manufacturing industry and imported some products with high tariffs. They would have to pay more for imports. They claimed their economic interest was being unfairly injured. They attempted to "nullify" the federal tariff and spoke of secession from the Union (see the Nullification Crisis). President Andrew Jackson let it be known he would use the U.S. Army to enforce the law, and no state supported the South Carolina call for nullification. A compromise ended the crisis included a lowering of the average tariff rate over ten years to a rate of 15% to 20%.[30]

text: Second Party System[edit]

text: Tariffs soon became a major political issue as the Whigs (1832–1852) and (after 1854) the Republicans wanted to protect their mostly northern industries and constituents by voting for higher tariffs and the Southern Democrats, which had very little industry but imported many goods voted for lower tariffs. Each party as it came into power voted to raise or lower tariffs under the constraints that the Federal Government always needed a certain level of revenues. The United States public debt was paid off in 1834 and President Andrew Jackson, a strong Southern Democrat, oversaw the cutting of the tariff rates roughly in half and eliminating nearly all federal excise taxes in about 1835.

text: Henry Clay and his Whig Party, envisioning a rapid modernization based on highly productive factories, sought a high tariff. Their key argument was that startup factories, or "infant industries", would at first be less efficient than European (British) producers. Furthermore, American factory workers were paid higher wages than their European competitors. The arguments proved highly persuasive in industrial districts. Clay's position was adopted in the 1828 and 1832 Tariff Acts. The Nullification Crisis forced a partial abandonment of the Whig position. When the Whigs won victories in the 1840 and 1842 elections, taking control of Congress, they re-instituted higher tariffs with the Tariff of 1842.[31] In examining these debates Moore finds that they were not precursors to Civil War. Instead they looked backward and continued the old debate whether foreign trade policy should embrace free trade or protectionism.[32]

text: Walker Tariff[edit]

text: The Democrats won in 1845, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the entire country for lower tariffs. They sought a level of a "tariff for revenue only" that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to one section or economic sector at the expense of another. The Walker Tariff actually increased trade with Britain and others and brought in more revenue to the federal treasury than the higher tariff. The average tariff on the Walker Tariff was about 25%. While protectionists in Pennsylvania and neighboring states were angered, the South achieved its goal of setting low tariff rates before the Civil War.[33]

text: Low tariff of 1857[edit]

text: The Walker Tariff remained in place until 1857, when a nonpartisan coalition lowered them again with the Tariff of 1857 to 18%. This was in response to the British repeal of their protectionist "Corn Laws".[34]

text: The Democrats in Congress, dominated by Southern Democrats, wrote and passed the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were down to about 15%, a move that boosted trade so overwhelmingly that revenues actually increased, from just over $20 million in 1840 ($0.5 billion in 2016 dollars), to more than $80 million by 1856 ($1.7 billion).[35] The South had almost no complaints but the low rates angered many Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry. The Republican Party replaced the Whigs in 1854 and also favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth; it was part of the 1860 Republican platform.

text: The Morrill Tariff significantly raising tariff rates became possible only after the Southern Senators walked out of Congress when their states left the Union, leaving a Republican majority. It was signed by Democratic President James Buchanan in early March 1861 shortly before President Abraham Lincoln took office. Pennsylvania iron mills and New England woolen mills mobilized businessmen and workers to call for high tariffs, but Republican merchants wanted low tariffs. The high tariff advocates lost in 1857, but stepped up their campaign by blaming the economic recession of 1857 on the lower rates. Economist Henry Charles Carey of Philadelphia was the most outspoken advocate, along with Horace Greeley and his influential newspaper, the New York Tribune. Increases were finally enacted in February 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress on the eve of the Civil War.[36][37]

text: Some historians in recent decades have minimized the tariff issue as a cause of the war, noting that few people in 1860–61 said it was of central importance to them. Compromises were proposed in 1860–61 to save the Union, but they did not involve the tariff.[38] Arguably, the effects of a tariff enacted in March 1861 could have made little impact upon any delegation which met prior to its signing. It is indicative of the Northern industrial supported and anti-agrarian position of that 1861 Republican controlled congress. Some secessionist documents do mention a tariff issue, though not nearly as often as the preservation of the impactful economic institution of slavery. However, a few libertarian economists place more importance on the tariff issue.[39]

text: Civil War[edit]

text: During the war far more revenue was needed, so the rates were raised again and again, along with many other taxes such as excise taxes on luxuries and income taxes on the rich.[40] By far most of the wartime government revenue came from bonds and loans ($2.6 billion), not taxes ($357 million) or tariffs ($305 million).[41]

text: The Morrill Tariff took effect a few weeks before the war began on April 12, 1861, and was not collected in the South. The Confederate States of America (CSA) passed its own tariff of about 15% on most items, including many items that previously were duty-free from the North. Previously tariffs between states were prohibited. The Confederates believed that they could finance their government by tariffs. The anticipated tariff revenue never appeared as the Union Navy blockaded their ports and the Union army restricted their trade with the Northern states. The Confederacy collected a mere $3.5 million in tariff revenue from the Civil War start to end and had to resort to inflation and confiscation instead for revenue.[42]

text: Reconstruction Era[edit]

text: Historian Howard K. Beale argued that high tariffs were needed during the Civil War, but were retained after the war for the benefit of Northern industrialists, who would otherwise lose markets and profits. To keep political control of Congress, Beale argued, Northern Industrialists worked through the Republican Party and supported Reconstruction policies that kept low-tariff Southern whites out of power. The Beale thesis was widely disseminated by the influential survey of Charles A. Beard, The Rise of American Civilization (1927).[43][44]

text: In the late 1950s historians rejected the Beale-Beard thesis by showing that Northern businessmen were evenly divided on the tariff, and were not using Reconstruction policies to support it.[45][46]

text: Politics of protection[edit]

text: The iron and steel industry, and the wool industry, were the well-organized interests groups that demanded (and usually obtained) high tariffs through support of the Republican Party. Industrial workers had much higher wages than their European counterparts, and they creditied it to the tariff and voted Republican.[47]

text: Democrats were divided on the issue, in large part because of pro-tariff elements in the Pennsylvania party who wanted to protect the growing iron industry, as well as pockets of high tariff support in nearby industrializing states.[48] However President Grover Cleveland made low tariffs the centerpiece of Democratic Party policies in the late 1880s. His argument is that high tariffs were an unnecessary and unfair tax on consumers. The South and West generally supported low tariffs, and the industrial East high tariffs.[49] Republican William McKinley was the outstanding spokesman for high tariffs, promising it would bring prosperity for all groups.[50][51]

text: After the Civil War, high tariffs remained as the Republican Party remained in office and the Southern Democrats were restricted from office. Advocates insisted that tariffs brought prosperity to the nation as a whole and no one was really injured. As industrialization proceeded apace throughout the Northeast, some Democrats, especially Pennsylvanians, became high tariff advocates.

text: Farmers and wool[edit]

text: The Republican high tariff advocates appealed to farmers with the theme that high-wage factory workers would pay premium prices for foodstuffs. This was the "home market" idea, and it won over most farmers in the Northeast, but it had little relevance to the southern and western farmers who exported most of their cotton, tobacco and wheat. In the late 1860s the wool manufacturers (based near Boston and Philadelphia) formed the first national lobby, and cut deals with wool-growing farmers in several states. Their challenge was that fastidious wool producers in Britain and Australia marketed a higher quality fleece than the careless Americans, and that British manufacturers had costs as low as the American mills. The result was a wool tariff that helped the farmers by a high rate on imported wool—a tariff the American manufacturers had to pay—together with a high tariff on finished woolens and worsted goods.[52]

text: U.S. industrial output[edit]

text: Apart from wool and woolens, American industry and agriculture—and industrial workers—had become the most efficient in the world by the 1880s as they took the lead in the worldwide Industrial Revolution. They were not at risk from cheap imports. No other country had the industrial capacity, large market, the high efficiency and low costs, or the complex distribution system needed to compete in the vast American market. Indeed, it was the British who watched in stunned horror as cheaper American products flooded their home islands. Wailed the London Daily Mail in 1900,

text: "We have lost to the American manufacturer electrical machinery, locomotives, steel rails, sugar-producing and agricultural machinery, and latterly even stationary engines, the pride and backbone of the British engineering industry."

text: Nevertheless, some American manufacturers and union workers demanded the high tariff be maintained. The tariff represented a complex balance of forces. Railroads, for example, consumed vast quantities of steel. To the extent tariffs raised steel prices, they paid much more making possible the U.S steel industry's massive investment to expand capacity and switch to the Bessemer process and later to the open hearth furnace. Between 1867 and 1900 U.S. steel production increased more than 500 times from 22,000 tons to 11,400,000 tons and Bessemer steel rails, first made in the U.S that would last 18 years under heavy traffic, would come to replace the old wrought iron rail that could only endure two years under light service.[53] Taussig says that in 1881, British steel rails sold for $31 a ton, and if Americans imported them they paid a $28/ton tariff, giving $59/ton for an imported ton of rails. American mills charged $61 a ton—and made a huge profit, which was then reinvested into increased capacity, higher quality steels and more efficient production.[54] By 1897 the American steel rail price had dropped to $19.60 per ton compared to the British price at $21.00 – not including the $7.84 duty charge – demonstrating that the tariff had performed its purpose of giving the industry time to become competitive.[55] Then the U.S. steel industry became an exporter of steel rail to England selling below the British price and during WW I would become the largest supplier of steel to the allies. From 1915 through 1918, the largest American steel company, U.S. Steel, alone delivered more steel each year than Germany and Austria-Hungary combined, totalling 99,700,000 tons during WW I.[56] The Republicans became masters of negotiating exceedingly complex arrangements so that inside each of their congressional districts there were more satisfied "winners" than disgruntled "losers". The tariff after 1880 was an ideological relic with no longer any economic rationale.[52]

text: Cleveland tariff policy[edit]

text: Democratic President Grover Cleveland redefined the issue in 1887, with his stunning attack on the tariff as inherently corrupt, opposed to true republicanism, and inefficient to boot: "When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise... it is plain that the exaction of more than [minimal taxes] is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice."[57] The election of 1888 was fought primarily over the tariff issue, and Cleveland lost.[58] Republican Congressman William McKinley argued,

text: "Free foreign trade gives our money, our manufactures, and our markets to other nations to the injury of our labor, our tradespeople, and our farmers. Protection keeps money, markets, and manufactures at home for the benefit of our own people."

text: Democrats campaigned energetically against the high McKinley tariff of 1890, and scored sweeping gains that year; they restored Cleveland to the White House in 1892. The severe depression that started in 1893 ripped apart the Democratic party. Cleveland and the pro-business Bourbon Democrats insisted on a much lower tariff. His problem was that Democratic electoral successes had brought in Democratic congressmen from industrial districts who were willing to raise rates to benefit their constituents. The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 did lower overall rates from 50 percent to 42 percent, but contained so many concessions to protectionism that Cleveland refused to sign it (it became law anyway).[59]

text: McKinley tariff policy[edit]

text: McKinley campaigned heavily in 1896 on the high tariff as a positive solution to depression. Promising protection and prosperity to every economic sector, he won a smashing victory. The Republicans rushed through the Dingley tariff in 1897, boosting rates back to the 50 percent level. Democrats responded that the high rates created government sponsored "trusts" (monopolies) and led to higher consumer prices. McKinley won reelection by an even bigger landslide and started talking about a post-tariff era of reciprocal trade agreements. Reciprocity went nowhere; McKinley's vision was a half century too early.[60] The Republicans split bitterly on the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909) saw the tariff issue was ripping his party apart, so he postponed any consideration of it. The delicate balance flew apart on under Republican William Howard Taft. He campaigned for president in 1908 for tariff "reform", which everyone assumed meant lower rates. The House lowered rates with the Payne Bill, then sent it to the Senate where Nelson Wilmarth Aldrich mobilized high-rate Senators. Aldrich was a New England businessman and a master of the complexities of the tariff, the Midwestern Republican insurgents were rhetoricians and lawyers who distrusted the special interests and assumed the tariff was "sheer robbery" at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Rural America believed that its superior morality deserved special protection, while the dastardly immorality of the trusts—and cities generally—merited financial punishment. Aldrich baited them. Did the insurgents want lower tariffs? His wickedly clever Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909 lowered the protection on Midwestern farm products, while raising rates favorable to his Northeast.[61][62]

text: By 1913 with the new income tax generating revenue, the Democrats in Congress were able to reduce rates with the Underwood Tariff. The outbreak of war in 1914 made the impact of tariffs of much less importance compared to war contracts. When the Republicans returned to power the returned the rates to a high level in the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922. The next raise came with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 at the start of the Great Depression.

text: Tariff with Canada[edit]

text: The Canadian-American Reciprocity Treaty increased trade between 1855 and its ending in 1866. When it ended Canada turned to tariffs. The National Policy was a Canadian economic program introduced by John A. Macdonald's Conservative Party in 1879 after it returned to power. It had been an official policy, however, since 1876. It was based on high tariffs to protect Canada's manufacturing industry. Macdonald campaigned on the policy in the 1878 election, and handily beat the Liberal Party, which supported free trade.

text: Efforts to restore free trade with Canada collapsed when Canada rejected a proposed reciprocity treaty in fear of American imperialism in the 1911 federal election. Taft negotiated a reciprocity agreement with Canada, that had the effect of sharply lowering tariffs. Democrats supported the plan but Midwestern Republicans bitterly opposed it. Barnstorming the country for his agreement, Taft undiplomatically pointed to the inevitable integration of the North American economy, and suggested that Canada should come to a "parting of the ways" with Britain. Canada's Conservative Party, under the leadership of Robert Borden, now had an issue to regain power from the low-tariff Liberals; after a surge of pro-imperial anti-Americanism, the Conservatives won. Ottawa rejected reciprocity, reasserted the National Policy and went to London first for new financial and trade deals. The Payne Aldrich Tariff of 1909 actually changed little and had slight economic impact one way or the other, but the political impact was enormous. The insurgents felt tricked and defeated and swore vengeance against Wall Street and its minions Taft and Aldrich. The insurgency led to a fatal split down the middle in 1912 as the GOP lost its balance wheel.[63]

text: Smuggling and Coast Guard[edit]

text: Historically, high tariffs have led to high rates of smuggling. The United States Revenue Cutter Service was established by Secretary Hamilton in 1790 as an armed maritime law and custom enforcement service. Today it remains the primary maritime law enforcement force in the United States.

text: The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is a federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security charged with regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting customs (import duties or tariffs approved by the U.S. Congress), and enforcing U.S. regulations, including trade, customs and immigration. They man most border crossing stations and ports. When shipments of goods arrive at a border crossing or port, customs officers inspect the contents and charge a tax according to the tariff formula for that product. Usually the goods cannot continue on their way until the custom duty is paid. Custom duties are one the easiest taxes to collect, and the cost of collection is small.

text: 1913 to present[edit]

text: Woodrow Wilson made a drastic lowering of tariff rates a major priority for his presidency. The 1913 Underwood Tariff cut rates, but the coming of World War I in 1914 radically revised trade patterns. Reduced trade and, especially, the new revenues generated by the federal income tax (bolstered by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913) made tariffs much less important in terms of economic impact and political rhetoric.

text: The Wilson administration desired a 'revamping' of the current banking system, "...so that the banks may be the instruments, not the masters, of business and of individual enterprise and initiative.".[64] President Wilson achieved this in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Working with the bullish Senator Aldrich and former presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, he perfected a way to centralize the banking system to allow Congress to closely allocate paper money production.[65] The Federal Reserve Act, with the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution, would create a trend of new forms of government funding.

text: When the Republicans regained power after the war they restored the usual high rates, with the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. When the Great Depression hit, international trade shrank drastically. The crisis baffled the GOP, and it tried to raise tariffs again with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This time it backfired, as Canada, Britain, Germany, France and other industrial countries retaliated with their own tariffs and special, bilateral trade deals. American imports and exports both went into a tailspin. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Dealers made promises about lowering tariffs on a reciprocal country-by-country basis (which they did), hoping this would expand foreign trade (which it did not.) Frustrated, they gave much more attention to domestic remedies for the depression; by 1936 the tariff issue had faded from politics, and the revenue it raised was small. In World War II both tariffs and reciprocity were insignificant compared to trade channeled through Lend Lease.[66]

text: Tariffs and Great Depression[edit]

text: Many economists hold the opinion that the tariff act did not greatly worsen the great depression:

text: Milton Friedman also held the opinion that the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 did not cause the Great Depression. Douglas A. Irwin writes : "most economists, both liberal and conservative, doubt that Smoot Hawley played much of a role in the subsequent contraction."[67]

text: William Bernstein writes "most economic historians now believe that only a minuscule part of that huge loss of both world GDP and the United States’ GDP can be ascribed to the tariff wars "because trade was only nine percent of global output, not enough to account for the seventeen percent drop in GDP following the Crash. He thinks the damage done could not possibly have exceeded 2 percent of world GDP and tariff "didn't even significantly deepen the Great Depression."(A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World)

text: Peter Temin, explains a tariff is an expansionary policy, like a devaluation as it diverts demand from foreign to home producers. He notes that exports were 7 percent of GNP in 1929, they fell by 1.5 percent of 1929 GNP in the next two years and the fall was offset by the increase in domestic demand from tariff. He concludes that contrary the popular argument, contractionary effect of the tariff was small. (Temin, P. 1989. Lessons from the Great Depression, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass)[68]

text: Nobel laureate Maurice Allais, thinks that tariff was rather helpful in the face of deregulation of competition in the global labor market and excessively loose credit prior to the Crash which, according to him, caused the crisis Financial and banking sectors. He notes higher trade barriers were partly a means to protect domestic demand from deflation and external disturbances. He obserses domestic production in the major industrialized countries fell faster than international trade contracted; if contraction of foreign trade had been the cause of the Depression, he argues, the opposite should have occurred. So, the decline in trade between 1929 and 1933 was a consequence of the Depression, not a cause. Most of the trade contraction took place between January 1930 and July 1932, before the introduction of the majority of protectionist measures, excepting limited American measures applied in the summer of 1930. It was the collapse of international liquidity that caused of the contraction of trade.[69]

text: Trade liberalization[edit]

text: Tariffs up to the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, were set by Congress after many months of testimony and negotiations. In 1934, the U.S. Congress, in a rare delegation of authority, passed the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934, which authorized the executive branch to negotiate bilateral tariff reduction agreements with other countries. The prevailing view then was that trade liberalization may help stimulate economic growth. However, no one country was willing to liberalize unilaterally. Between 1934 and 1945, the executive branch negotiated over 32 bilateral trade liberalization agreements with other countries. The belief that low tariffs led to a more prosperous country are now the predominant belief with some exceptions. Multilateralism is embodied in the seven tariff reduction rounds that occurred between 1948 and 1994. In each of these "rounds", all General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) members came together to negotiate mutually agreeable trade liberalization packages and reciprocal tariff rates. In the Uruguay round in 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established to help establish uniform tariff rates.

text: Presently only about 30% of all import goods are subject to tariffs in the United States, the rest are on the free list. The "average" tariffs now charged by the United States are at a historic low. The list of negotiated tariffs are listed on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as put out by the United States International Trade Commission.[70]

text: Post World War II[edit]

text: After the war the U.S. promoted the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) established in 1947, to minimize tariffs and other restrictions, and to liberalize trade among all capitalist countries. In 1995 GATT became the World Trade Organization (WTO); with the collapse of Communism its open markets/low tariff ideology became dominant worldwide in the 1990s.

text: American industry and labor prospered after World War II, but hard times set in after 1970. For the first time there was stiff competition from low-cost producers around the globe. Many rust belt industries faded or collapsed, especially the manufacture of steel, TV sets, shoes, toys, textiles and clothing. Toyota and Nissan threatened the giant domestic auto industry. In the late 1970s Detroit and the auto workers union combined to fight for protection. They obtained not high tariffs, but a voluntary restriction of imports from the Japanese government. Quotas were two-country diplomatic agreements that had the same protective effect as high tariffs, but did not invite retaliation from third countries. By limiting the number of Japanese automobiles that could be imported, quotas inadvertently helped Japanese companies push into larger, and more expensive market segments. The Japanese producers, limited by the number of cars they could export to America, opted to increase the value of their exports to maintain revenue growth. This action threatened the American producers' historical hold on the mid- and large-size car markets.[71]

text: The Chicken tax was a 1964 response by President Lyndon B. Johnson to tariffs placed by Germany (then West Germany) on importation of US chicken. Beginning in 1962, during the President Kennedy administration, the US accused Europe of unfairly restricting imports of American poultry at the request of West German chicken farmers. Diplomacy failed, and in January 1964, two months after taking office, President Johnson retaliated by imposing a 25 percent tax on all imported light trucks. This directly affected the German built Volkswagen vans. Officially it was explained that the light trucks tax would offset the dollar amount of imports of Volkswagen vans from West Germany with the lost American sales of chickens to Europe. But audio tapes from the Johnson White House reveal that in January 1964, President Johnson was attempting to convince United Auto Workers's president Walter Reuther, not to initiate a strike just prior the 1964 election and to support the president's civil rights platform. Reuther in turn wanted Johnson to respond to Volkswagen's increased shipments to the United States.[72]

text: 1980s to present[edit]

text: During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations Republicans abandoned protectionist policies, and came out against quotas and in favor of the GATT/WTO policy of minimal economic barriers to global trade. Free trade with Canada came about as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1987, which led in 1994 to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It was based on Reagan's plan to enlarge the scope of the market for American firms to include Canada and Mexico. President Bill Clinton, with strong Republican support in 1993, pushed NAFTA through Congress over the vehement objection of labor unions.[73][74]

text: Likewise, in 2000 Clinton worked with Republicans to give China entry into WTO and "most favored nation" trading status (i.e., the same low tariffs promised to any other WTO member). NAFTA and WTO advocates promoted an optimistic vision of the future, with prosperity to be based on intellectuals skills and managerial know-how more than on routine hand labor. They promised that free trade meant lower prices for consumers. Opposition to liberalized trade came increasingly from labor unions, who argued that this system also meant lower wages and fewer jobs for American workers who could not compete against wages of less than a dollar an hour. The shrinking size and diminished political clout of these unions repeatedly left them on the losing side.[75]

text: Despite overall decreases in international tariffs, some tariffs have been more resistant to change. For example, due partially to tariff pressure from the European Common Agricultural Policy, US agricultural subsidies have seen little decrease over the past few decades, even in the face of recent pressure from the WTO during the latest Doha talks.[76]


document_title: World Scout Jamboree

question_text: where was the first boy scout world jamboree held

text: World Scout Jamboree

text: Terminology[edit]

text: In lexicography, "Jamboree" is considered an Americanism that traces back to 1860–65 and refers to a joyful, noisy gathering.[3] The term is believed to originate from the words jabber (rapid, indistinct talk) and shivaree (noisy celebration), with "m" from jam (crowd).[4]

text: History[edit]

text: While World Scout Jamboree is the expression used by the World Organization of the Scout Movement,[5] other organizations held events called "jamborees" for their members.

text: The Scouting program became an international success following its founding by Robert Baden-Powell in 1907. With its continuing growth, the founder of the movement saw a need for a gathering of representatives of Scouting from all around the world. The general aim was to foster a worldwide brotherhood, and to help the young Scouts in the movement learn about other peoples and nations by direct interaction with them.

text: The idea of organizing such periodical international gatherings was originally conveyed to Baden-Powell by the General Chief of the Scouts of Greece, Konstantinos ("Kokos") Melas, during the 1918 international Scout meeting, in England.[6][7]Captain Melas proposed the gatherings should repeat every four years, in the same way Olympic Games were held in Ancient Greece. The suggestion was accepted with enthusiasm by Baden-Powell, who named the gatherings "Jamborees".

text: It was in 1920 that the first World Scout Jamboree was realized, held in the Olympia halls in Kensington, London. Symbolically, the Jamboree site bore the name of the birthplace of the Olympic Games, Olympia. 8,000 Scouts from 34 countries attended the event.

text: Thereafter, a Jamboree has been held every four years. There are two exceptions to this: no Jamboree was held between 1937 and 1947 because of the Second World War, and the 1979 Jamboree, which was to be held in Iran, was cancelled due to the political upheaval in the region at that time. The Jamboree has been held in different countries around the world. The first seven Jamborees were held in Europe. The eighth World Jamboree was held in North America where the tradition of moving the Jamboree among the continents began. As yet, Africa has not hosted a jamboree.

text: To replace the cancelled event of 1979, the World Scout Committee determined that an alternative celebration, the World Jamboree Year should take place. Several regional camps took place, such as the 12th Australian/4th Asia-Pacific Jamboree, held in Perth, Western Australia, along with countless Join-in-Jamboree activities — designed to allow Scouts from around the world to participate in an activity that thousands of other Scouts around the world were also participating in at the same time. This Join-in programme was reproduced again as part of the Scouting 2007 Centenary celebrations.

text: So far, the greatest attendance of all Jamborees was in 2011, where over 40,000 members from around the world descended upon Rinkaby in Sweden. This number represented the permanent contingent who remained for the entire event. They were joined by hundreds of thousands of visiting Scouts who participated on a day basis.

text: The first Jamboree was more akin to an exhibition of Scouting, allowing visitors to see how things were done in other parts of the world. The Second Jamboree was conducted on a camp basis and each successive Jamboree has developed on this format where the programme is typically more activity oriented, with plenty of time for Scouts from different nations to interact and learn about each other in less formal ways than an exhibition would allow.

text: The 2007 Jamboree coincided with the Scouting Centenary celebrations. Because of this, the honour of hosting the event was again bestowed upon the United Kingdom, as the birthplace of Scouting. Over 40,000 young people camped in August at Hylands Park in Chelmsford, Essex. Hundreds of thousands of day visitors attended events in the south-east of England as part of the Jamboree.

text: The following Jamboree was held at Rinkaby in Sweden, opening on 27 July 2011, followed in 2015 by Japan, and the Jamboree in 2019 will be at The Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve in West Virginia.

text: Related world-wide events[edit]

text: Jamboree on the Air[edit]

text: Jamboree on the Air, usually referred to as JOTA, is an international Scouting and Guiding activity held annually on the third full weekend in October. The event was first held in conjunction with the fiftieth anniversary of Scouting in 1957, and was devised by radio amateur operator Leslie R. Mitchell who used the callsign G3BHK. It is now considered the largest event organized by the WOSM annually.[8]

text: Amateur radio operators from all over the world participate with over 500,000 Scouts and Guides to teach them about radio and to assist them to contact their fellow Scouts and Guides by means of amateur radio and since 2004, by the VOIP-based Echolink. Scouts and Guides are also encouraged to send paper or electronic confirmations known as "QSL cards", or "eQSLs" when they are sent electronically. This provides the Scouts and Guides with a means of learning about fellow Scouts and Guides from around the world. It is an adjunct to the World Scout Jamboree.

text: The event is recognized as one of international participation by the various Scout and Guide organisations, and supports several awards which are a part of Scouting and Guiding programmes.[citation needed]

text: Jamboree on the Internet[edit]

text: Jamboree on the Internet, known by its acronym JOTI, is an international Scouting activity held annually. Participants, through the use of designated Chats from all over the world, can contact their fellow Scouts by means of the Internet. Common communication methods include ScoutLink (IRC), e-mail, and VOIP. This provides the Scouts with a means of learning about fellow Scouts from around the world. JOTI operates alongside JOTA (Jamboree on the Air) and is an official event of the World Organization of the Scout Movement.

text: JOTI was pioneered in 1995 by Queanbeyan Rovers whilst one Rover, Norvan Vogt was on a student exchange in the Netherlands, with the home crew in Australia co-ordinated by Brett Sheffield. They connected Putten, Netherlands and Queanbeyan, Australia with dedicated IRC servers.[9] In November 1996 the World Scout Committee, noting that Scouting already had a considerable presence on the Internet, and that there was already an informal and rapidly growing Jamboree on the Internet, decided that JOTI should become an official international Scouting event, and that it should be held on the same weekend as the Jamboree on the Air (JOTA).[citation needed]

text: 2011 saw the first ever 'JOTI Radio' station, a broadcast internet radio station based in the UK to provide entertainment for the JOTI weekend, which had live interviews from Scouts all over the world, in its initial year organised by Scout Radio the National Broadcast Radio team for the UK in conjunction with local Scouters who later formed Avon Scout Radio who now run JOTI Radio with the support of Scout Radio. JOTI Radio is now part of the annual JOTA/JOTI weekend.[citation needed]

text: Jamboree on the Trail[edit]

text: Following on the idea of the Join-in events from the World Jamboree Year, Jamboree on the Trail (or JOTT),[10] is a co-ordinated event where Scouts around the world simultaneously participate in local hikes. It takes place on an annual basis on the 2nd Saturday in May.

text: This type of event allows Scouts to take part in activities at the same time as other Scouts, promoting the idea of the Scouting brotherhood. Participants are awarded a JOTT badge as a recognition of having participated in this worldwide event.

text: Smaller events[edit]

text: There are up to ten smaller Jamboree (or Jamborette) events held each year around the world. This includes Regional Jamborees, which are held every three years in their areas of the world. Scouts from outside these regions are invited, but attendance is generally lower (for example, the EuroJam 2005 event hosted 10,000 Scouts, mostly from Europe).

text: National associations, and sub-national groups, also organise a number of events, such as the WINGS event and KIJ, which is organised by a County level body.

text: List of events[edit]

text:
Year[11]
Event
Location
Host Country
Theme/Name
Dates
Attendance
Countries Attended

1920
1st World Scout Jamboree
London
 United Kingdom
Develop World Peace[12]
000000001920-07-30-0000July 30, 1920–
000000001920-08-08-0000August 8, 1920[13]
8,000
34

1924
2nd World Scout Jamboree
Ermelunden
 Denmark
World Citizenship[12]
000000001924-08-10-0000August 10, 1924–
000000001924-08-17-0000August 17, 1924?[14][15]
4,549
32

1929
3rd World Scout Jamboree
Upton, Merseyside
 United Kingdom
Coming of Age
000000001929-07-31-0000July 31, 1929–
000000001929-08-13-0000August 13, 1929[16][17]
30,000[18]
69

1933
4th World Scout Jamboree
Gödöllő
 Hungary
Face New Adventures[12]
000000001933-08-02-0000August 2, 1933–
000000001933-08-15-0000August 15, 1933
25,792
33

1937
5th World Scout Jamboree
Bloemendaal[19]
 Netherlands
Lead Happy Lives[12]
000000001937-07-31-0000July 31, 1937–
000000001937-08-09-0000August 9, 1937[20][21][22][23]
28,750
54

1947
6th World Scout Jamboree
Moisson
 France
Jamboree of Peace
000000001947-08-09-0000August 9, 1947–
000000001947-08-20-0000August 20, 1947[24]
24,152
71

1951
7th World Scout Jamboree
Bad Ischl
 Austria
Jamboree of Simplicity
000000001951-08-03-0000August 3, 1951–
000000001951-08-13-0000August 13, 1951[25]
12,884
61

1955
8th World Scout Jamboree
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario
 Canada
New Horizons
000000001955-08-18-0000August 18, 1955–
000000001955-08-28-0000August 28, 1955[26][27]
11,139
71

1957
9th World Scout Jamboree
Sutton Park, Warwickshire
 United Kingdom
50th Anniversary of Scouting
000000001957-08-01-0000August 1, 1957–
000000001957-08-12-0000August 12, 1957[28]
31,426
82

1959
10th World Scout Jamboree
Los Baños, Laguna
 Philippines
Building Tomorrow Today
000000001959-07-17-0000July 17, 1959–
000000001959-07-26-0000July 26, 1959[29]
12,203
44

1963
11th World Scout Jamboree
Marathon
 Greece
Higher and Wider
000000001963-08-01-0000August 1, 1963–
000000001963-08-11-0000August 11, 1963[30]

11,398
89

1967
12th World Scout Jamboree
Farragut State Park, Idaho
 United States
For Friendship
000000001967-08-01-0000August 1, 1967–
000000001967-08-09-0000August 9, 1967[31]
12,011
105

1971
13th World Scout Jamboree
Fujinomiya, Shizuoka
 Japan
For Understanding
000000001971-08-02-0000August 2, 1971–
000000001971-08-10-0000August 10, 1971[32]
23,758
87

1975
14th World Scout Jamboree
Lillehammer
 Norway[33]
Five Fingers, One Hand
000000001975-07-29-0000July 29, 1975–
000000001975-08-05-0000August 5, 1975[34][35]
17,259
91

1979
(15th World Scout Jamboree)
Nishapur
 Iran

000000001979-07-15-0000July 15, 1979–
000000001979-07-23-0000July 23, 1979[36]
cancelled

1983
15th World Scout Jamboree
Kananaskis, Alberta
 Canada
The Spirit Lives On
000000001983-07-05-0000July 5, 1983–
000000001983-07-15-0000July 15, 1983[12]
14,752
106

1987–1988
16th World Scout Jamboree
Sydney
 Australia
Bringing the World Together
000000001987-12-31-0000December 31, 1987–
000000001988-01-07-0000January 7, 1988
14,434
84

1991
17th World Scout Jamboree
Seoraksan National Park
 South Korea
Many Lands, One World
000000001991-08-08-0000August 8, 1991–
000000001991-08-16-0000August 16, 1991[12]
19,083
135

1995
18th World Scout Jamboree
Dronten
 Netherlands
Future is Now
000000001995-08-01-0000August 1, 1995–
000000001995-08-11-0000August 11, 1995[12]
28,960
166

1998–1999
19th World Scout Jamboree
Picarquín
 Chile
Building Peace Together
000000001998-12-27-0000December 27, 1998–
000000001999-01-06-0000January 6, 1999
31,534
157

2002–2003
20th World Scout Jamboree
Sattahip
 Thailand
Share our World, Share our Cultures
000000002002-12-28-0000December 28, 2002–
000000002003-01-08-0000January 8, 2003
24,000
147

2007
21st World Scout Jamboree
Chelmsford, Essex
 United Kingdom
One World, One Promise
Scouting Centenary
000000002007-07-28-0000July 28, 2007–
000000002007-08-08-0000August 8, 2007
37,868
155

2011
22nd World Scout Jamboree
Kristianstad
 Sweden
Simply Scouting
000000002011-07-27-0000July 27, 2011–
000000002011-08-07-0000August 7, 2011
40,061
146

2015
23rd World Scout Jamboree
Kirarahama, Yamaguchi
 Japan
A Spirit of Unity
000000002015-07-28-0000July 28, 2015–
000000002015-08-08-0000August 8, 2015[37]
33,628
155

2019[38]
24th World Scout Jamboree
Glen Jean, West Virginia
 United States[39]
Unlock a New World[40]
000000002019-07-22-0000July 22, 2019–
000000002019-08-02-0000August 2, 2019[41]

2023
25th World Scout Jamboree
Saemangeum
 South Korea[42]
Draw Your Dream[42]

tag: table


document_title: List of cities in Wisconsin

question_text: cities in wisconsin that start with a d

question_tokens: cities in wisconsin that start with a d

text: List of cities in Wisconsin

text: Wisconsin is a state located in the Midwestern United States. As of April 1, 2010, there were 190 cities in Wisconsin.[1]

text: See also: List of villages in Wisconsin, List of towns in Wisconsin.

text: List of cities[edit]

text:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

tag: ul

text:
City
County(ies)
Population
(2000 Census)
Population
(2010 Census)
Class
Incorporation
date[2]

Abbotsford
Clark
Marathon
1,956
2,310
4th
1965

Adams
Adams
1,831
1,967
4th
1926

Algoma
Kewaunee
3,357
3,167
4th
1879

Alma
Buffalo
942
781
4th
1885

Altoona
Eau Claire
6,698
6,706
4th
1887

Amery
Polk
2,845
2,902
4th
1919

Antigo
Langlade
8,560
8,234
4th
1885

Appleton
Calumet
Outagamie
Winnebago
70,087
72,623
2nd
1857

Arcadia
Trempealeau
2,402
2,925
4th
1925

Ashland
Ashland
Bayfield
8,620
8,216
4th
1887

Augusta
Eau Claire
1,460
1,550
4th
1885

Baraboo
Sauk
10,711
12,048
3rd
1882

Barron
Barron
3,248
3,423
4th
1887

Bayfield
Bayfield
611
487
4th
1913

Beaver Dam
Dodge
15,169
16,243
4th
1856

Beloit
Rock
35,775
36,966
3rd
1857

Berlin
Green Lake
Waushara
5,305
5,524
4th
1857

Black River Falls
Jackson
3,618
3,622
4th
1883

Blair
Trempealeau
1,273
1,366
4th
1949

Bloomer
Chippewa
3,347
3,539
4th
1920

Boscobel
Grant
3,047
3,231
4th
1873

Brillion
Calumet
2,937
3,148
4th
1944

Brodhead
Green
Rock
3,180
3,293
4th
1891

Brookfield
Waukesha
38,649
37,920
2nd
1954

Buffalo City
Buffalo
1,040
1,023
4th
1859

Burlington
Racine
Walworth
9,936
10,464
4th
1900

Cedarburg
Ozaukee
11,102
11,412
3rd
1885

Chetek
Barron
2,180
2,221
4th
1891

Chilton
Calumet
3,708
3,933
4th
1877

Chippewa Falls
Chippewa
12,900
13,679
3rd
1869

Clintonville
Waupaca
4,736
4,559
4th
1887

Colby
Clark
Marathon
1,616
1,852
4th
1891

Columbus
Columbia
Dodge
4,479
4,991
4th
1874

Cornell
Chippewa
1,466
1,467
4th
1956

Crandon
Forest
1,961
1,920
4th
1898

Cuba City
Grant
Lafayette
2,156
2,086
4th
1925

Cudahy
Milwaukee
18,429
18,267
3rd
1906

Cumberland
Barron
2,280
2,170
4th
1885

Darlington
Lafayette
2,418
2,451
4th
1877

Delafield
Waukesha
6,472
7,085
4th
1959

Delavan
Walworth
7,956
8,463
4th
1897

De Pere
Brown
20,559
23,800
3rd
1883

Dodgeville
Iowa
4,220
4,698
4th
1889

Durand
Pepin
1,968
1,931
4th
1887

Eagle River
Vilas
1,443
1,398
4th
1937

Eau Claire
Chippewa
Eau Claire
61,704
65,883
2nd
1872

Edgerton
Dane
Rock
4,898
5,461
4th
1883

Elkhorn
Walworth
7,305
10,084
4th
1897

Elroy
Juneau
1,578
1,442
4th
1885

Evansville
Rock
4,039
5,012
4th
1896

Fennimore
Grant
2,387
2,497
4th
1919

Fitchburg
Dane
20,501
25,260
4th
1983

Fond du Lac
Fond du Lac
42,203
43,021
2nd
1852

Fort Atkinson
Jefferson
11,621
12,368
4th
1878

Fountain City
Buffalo
983
859
4th
1889

Fox Lake
Dodge
1,454
1,519
4th
1938

Franklin
Milwaukee
29,494
35,451
3rd
1956

Galesville
Trempealeau
1,427
1,481
4th
1942

Gillett
Oconto
1,262
1,386
4th
1944

Glendale
Milwaukee
13,367
12,872
3rd
1950

Glenwood City
St. Croix
1,183
1,242
4th
1895

Green Bay
Brown
102,767
104,057
2nd
1854

Green Lake
Green Lake
1,100
960
4th
1962

Greenfield
Milwaukee
35,476
36,720
3rd
1957

Greenwood
Clark
1,079
1,026
4th
1891

Hartford
Dodge
Washington
10,905
14,223
3rd
1883

Hayward
Sawyer
2,129
2,318
4th
1915

Hillsboro
Vernon
1,302
1,417
4th
1885

Horicon
Dodge
3,775
3,655
4th
1897

Hudson
St. Croix
8,775
12,719
4th
1858

Hurley
Iron
1,818
1,547
4th
1918

Independence
Trempealeau
1,244
1,336
4th
1942

Janesville
Rock
59,498
63,575
2nd
1853

Jefferson
Jefferson
7,338
7,973
4th
1878

Juneau
Dodge
2,485
2,814
4th
1887

Kaukauna
Outagamie
12,983
15,462
3rd
1885

Kenosha
Kenosha
90,352
99,218[3]
2nd
1850

Kewaunee
Kewaunee
2,806
2,952
4th
1883

Kiel
Calumet
Manitowoc
3,450
3,738
4th
1920

La Crosse
La Crosse
51,818
51,320
2nd
1856

Ladysmith
Rusk
3,932
3,414
4th
1905

Lake Geneva
Walworth
7,148
7,651
4th
1883

Lake Mills
Jefferson
4,843
5,708
4th
1905

Lancaster
Grant
4,070
3,868
4th
1878

Lodi
Columbia
2,882
3,050
4th
1941

Loyal
Clark
1,308
1,261
4th
1948

Madison
Dane
208,054
233,209
2nd
1856

Manawa
Waupaca
1,330
1,371
4th
1954

Manitowoc
Manitowoc
34,053
33,736
3rd
1870

Marinette
Marinette
11,749
10,968
3rd
1887

Marion
Shawano
Waupaca
1,297
1,260
4th
1898

Markesan
Green Lake
1,396
1,476
4th
1959

Marshfield
Marathon
Wood
18,800
19,118
3rd
1883

Mauston
Juneau
3,740
4,423
4th
1883

Mayville
Dodge
4,902
5,154
4th
1885

Medford
Taylor
4,350
4,326
4th
1889

Mellen
Ashland
845
731
4th
1907

Menasha
Calumet
Winnebago
16,331
17,353
3rd
1874

Menomonie
Dunn
14,937
16,264
4th
1882

Mequon
Ozaukee
22,643
23,132
4th
1957

Merrill
Lincoln
10,146
9,661
4th
1883

Middleton
Dane
15,770
17,442
3rd
1963

Milton
Rock
5,132
5,546
4th
1969

Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Washington
Waukesha
596,974
594,833
1st
1846

Mineral Point
Iowa
2,617
2,487
4th
1857

Mondovi
Buffalo
2,634
2,777
4th
1889

Monona
Dane
8,018
7,533
4th
1969

Monroe
Green
10,843
10,827
4th
1882

Montello
Marquette
1,397
1,495
4th
1938

Montreal
Iron
838
807
4th
1924

Mosinee
Marathon
4,063
3,988
4th
1931

Muskego
Waukesha
21,397
24,135
3rd
1964

Neenah
Winnebago
24,507
25,501
3rd
1873

Neillsville
Clark
2,731
2,463
4th
1882

Nekoosa
Wood
2,590
2,580
4th
1926

New Berlin
Waukesha
38,220
39,584
3rd
1959

New Holstein
Calumet
3,301
3,236
4th
1889

New Lisbon
Juneau
1,436
2,554
4th
1889

New London
Outagamie
Waupaca
7,085
7,295
4th
1877

New Richmond
St. Croix
6,310
8,375
4th
1885

Niagara
Marinette
1,880
1,624
4th
1992

Oak Creek
Milwaukee
28,456
34,451
3rd
1955

Oconomowoc
Waukesha
12,382
15,712
3rd
1875

Oconto
Oconto
4,708
4,513
4th
1869

Oconto Falls
Oconto
2,843
2,891
4th
1919

Omro
Winnebago
3,177
3,517
4th
1944

Onalaska
La Crosse
14,839
17,736
4th
1887

Oshkosh
Winnebago
62,916
66,083
2nd
1853

Osseo
Trempealeau
1,669
1,701
4th
1941

Owen
Clark
936
940
4th
1925

Park Falls
Price
2,739
2,462
4th
1912

Peshtigo
Marinette
3,474
3,502
4th
1903

Pewaukee
Waukesha
11,783
13,195
3rd
1999

Phillips
Price
1,675
1,478
4th
1891

Pittsville
Wood
866
874
4th
1887

Platteville
Grant
9,989
11,224
4th
1876

Plymouth
Sheboygan
7,781
8,445
4th
1877

Port Washington
Ozaukee
10,467
11,250
4th
1882

Portage
Columbia
9,728
10,324
4th
1854

Prairie du Chien
Crawford
6,018
5,911
4th
1872

Prescott
Pierce
3,764
4,258
4th
1857

Princeton
Green Lake
1,504
1,214
4th
1920

Racine
Racine
81,855
78,860
2nd
1848

Reedsburg
Sauk
7,827
10,014
4th
1887

Rhinelander
Oneida
7,735
7,798
4th
1894

Rice Lake
Barron
8,312
8,438
4th
1887

Richland Center
Richland
5,114
5,184
4th
1887

Ripon
Fond du Lac
7,450
7,733
4th
1858

River Falls
Pierce
St. Croix
12,560
15,000
3rd
1875

St. Croix Falls
Polk
2,033
2,133
4th
1958

St. Francis
Milwaukee
8,662
9,365
4th
1951

Schofield
Marathon
2,117
2,169
4th
1951

Seymour
Outagamie
3,335
3,451
4th
1879

Shawano
Shawano
8,298
9,305
4th
1874

Sheboygan
Sheboygan
50,792
49,288
2nd
1853

Sheboygan Falls
Sheboygan
6,772
7,775
4th
1913

Shell Lake
Washburn
1,309
1,347
4th
1961

Shullsburg
Lafayette
1,246
1,226
4th
1889

South Milwaukee
Milwaukee
21,256
21,156
4th
1897

Sparta
Monroe
8,648
9,522
4th
1883

Spooner
Washburn
2,653
2,682
4th
1909

Stanley
Chippewa
Clark
1,898
3,608
4th
1898

Stevens Point
Portage
24,551
26,717
3rd
1858

Stoughton
Dane
12,354
12,611
4th
1882

Sturgeon Bay
Door
9,437
9,144
4th
1883

Sun Prairie
Dane
20,369
29,364
3rd
1958

Superior
Douglas
27,368
27,244
2nd
1858

Thorp
Clark
1,536
1,621
4th
1948

Tomah
Monroe
8,419
9,093
4th
1883

Tomahawk
Lincoln
3,770
3,397
4th
1891

Two Rivers
Manitowoc
12,639
11,712
3rd
1878

Verona
Dane
7,052
10,619
4th
1977

Viroqua
Vernon
4,335
5,079
4th
1885

Washburn
Bayfield
2,280
2,117
4th
1904

Waterloo
Jefferson
3,259
3,333
4th
1962

Watertown
Dodge
Jefferson
21,598
23,861
3rd
1853

Waukesha
Waukesha
64,825
70,718
2nd
1895

Waupaca
Waupaca
5,676
6,069
4th
1878

Waupun
Dodge
Fond du Lac
10,944
11,340
4th
1878

Wausau
Marathon
38,426
39,106
3rd
1872

Wautoma
Waushara
1,998
2,218
4th
1901

Wauwatosa
Milwaukee
47,271
46,396
2nd
1897

West Allis
Milwaukee
61,254
60,411
2nd
1906

West Bend
Washington
28,152
31,078
3rd
1885

Westby
Vernon
2,045
2,200
4th
1920

Weyauwega
Waupaca
1,806
1,900
4th
1939

Whitehall
Trempealeau
1,651
1,558
4th
1941

Whitewater
Jefferson
Walworth
13,437
14,390
4th
1885

Wisconsin Dells
Adams
Columbia
Juneau
Sauk
2,418
2,678
4th
1925

Wisconsin Rapids
Wood
18,435
18,367
3rd
1869

text: Fictional[edit]

text:
Point Place, Wisconsin
Stillwell, Wisconsin
Willows, Wisconsin