League for Social Reconstruction

League for Social Reconstruction
Abbreviation	LSR
Formation	February 23, 1932; 91 years ago (1932-02-23)
Dissolved	1942
Type	Think tank
Purpose	Social change
Location	Toronto/Montreal
Region served	Canada
Official language	English
Main organ	Assembly
Affiliations	Co-operative Commonwealth Federation

The League for Social Reconstruction (LSR) was a circle of Canadian socialists officially formed in 1932. The group advocated for social and economic reformation as well as political education. The formation of the LSR was provoked by events such as the Great Depression and the completion of World War One as well as increased industrialization and urbanization.^{[citation needed]}. The league esteemed 'rational moralism' as the ideology that could be utilized and applied to prevent suffering in Canada. The league aimed to act as an independent supplementary force influencing public policy reform in Canada during this tumultuous period. Working with both intellectuals and politicians, the league assisted in the creation of centralized social welfare and national assistance schemes. The LSR disbanded formally in 1942 during the Second World War.

YouTube Encyclopedic

1/5
Views:
1 159 975
1 858 973
1 639 799
1 479 097
22 997

Transcription

Episode 31: Feminism and Suffrage Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course U.S. history and today we’re going to talk about women in the progressive era. My God, that is a fantastic hat. Wait, votes for women?? So between Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, and all those doughboys headed off to war, women in this period have sort of been footnoted shockingly.. Mr. Green, Mr. Green. I’d NEVER make a woman a footnote. She’d be the center of my world, my raison d’etre, my joie de vivre. Oh, Me from the Past. I’m reminded of why you got a C+ in French 3. Let me submit to you, Me from the Past, that your weird worship of women is a kind of misogyny because you’re imagining women as these beautiful, fragile things that you can possess. It turns out that women are not things. They are people in precisely the same way that you are a person and in the progressive era, they demanded to be seen as full citizens of the United States. In short, women don’t exist to be your joie de vivre. They get to have their own joie de vivre. intro So, it’s tempting to limit ourselves to discussion of women getting the right to vote with the passage of the 19th amendment, but if we focus too much on the constitutional history, we’re gonna miss a lot. Some historians refer to the thirty years between 1890 and 1920 as the “women’s era” because it was in that time that women started to have greater economic and political opportunities. Women were also aided by legal changes, like getting the right to own property, control their wages and make contracts and wills. By 1900 almost 5 million women worked for wages, mainly in domestic service or light manufacturing, like the garment industry. Women in America were always vital contributors to the economy as producers and consumers and they always worked, whether for wages or taking care of children and the home. And as someone who has recently returned from paternity leave, let me tell you, that ain’t no joke. And American women were also active as reformers since, like, America became a thing. And those reform movements brought women into state and national politics before the dawn of the progressive era. Unfortunately, their greatest achievement, Prohibition, was also our greatest national shame. Oh, yeah, alright, okay. It’s actually not in our top 5 national shames. But, probably women’s greatest influence indeed came through membership AND leadership in the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. The WCTU was founded in 1874 and by 1890 it had 150,000 members, making it the largest female organization in the United States. Under the leadership of Frances Willard, the WCTU embraced a broad reform agenda. Like it included pushing for the right for women to vote. The feeling was that the best way to stop people from drinking was to pass local laws that made it harder to drink, and to do that it would be very helpful if women could vote. Because American men were a bunch of alcoholic scoundrels who darn well weren’t going to vote to get rid of beer hoses. In 1895 Willard boldly declared, “A wider freedom is coming to the women of America. Too long has it been held that woman has no right to enter these movements (…) Politics is the place for woman.” But the role of women in politics did greatly expand during the Progressive era. As in prior decades, many reformers were middle and upper class women, but the growing economy and the expansion of what might be called the upper-middle class meant that there were more educational opportunities and this growing group of college-educated women leaned in and became the leaders of new movements. Sorry, there was no way I was gonna get through this without one “lean in.” I love that book. So as we’ve talked about before, the 1890s saw the dawning of the American mass consumer society and many of the new products made in the second wave of industrialization were aimed at women, especially “labor-saving” devices like washing machines. If you’ve ever had an infant, you might notice that they poop and barf on everything all the time. Like, I recently called the pediatrician and I was like, “My 14-day-old daughter poops fifteen times a day.” And he was like, “If anything, that seems low.” So the washing machine is a real game-changer. And many women realized that being the primary consumers who did the shopping for the home gave them powerful leverage to bring about change. Chief among these was Florence Kelley, a college-educated woman who after participating in a number of progressive reform causes came to head the National Consumers League. The League sponsored boycotts and shaped consumption patterns encouraging consumers to buy products that were made without child or what we now would call sweatshop labor. Which at the time was often just known as “labor.” And there was also a subtle shift in gender roles as more and more women worked outside the home. African American women continued to work primarily as domestic servants or in agriculture, and immigrant women mostly did low-paying factory labor, but for native-born white women there were new opportunities, especially in office work. And this points to how technology created opportunities for women. Like, almost all the telephone operators in the U.S. were women. By 1920 office workers and telephone operators made up 25% of the female workforce, while domestic servants were only 15%. A union leader named Abraham Bisno remarked that working gave immigrant women a sense of independence: “They acquired the right to personality, something alien to the highly patriarchal family structures of the old country.” Of course this also meant that young women were often in conflict with their parents, as a job brought more freedom, money, and perhaps, if they were lucky, a room of one’s own. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? Please let it be Virginia Woolf, please let it be Virginia Woolf. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either right or I get shocked. Alright, let’s see what we’ve got. “The spirit of personal independence in the women of today is sure proof that a change has come … the radical change in the economic position of women is advancing upon us… The growing individualization of democratic life brings inevitable changes to our daughters as well as to our sons … One of its most noticeable features is the demand in women not only for their own money, but for their own work for the sake of personal expression. Few girls today fail to manifest some signs of the desire for individual expression …” Well, that’s not Virginia Woolf. Stan, I’m going to be honest, I do not know the answer to this one. However, it has been Woodrow Wilson for the last two weeks. You wouldn’t do that again to me, or would you? I’m gonna guess Woodrow Wilson. Final answer. DANG IT. Charlotte Perkins Gilman in the book Women and Economics? What? Aaaaaah! The idea that having a job is valuable just for the independence that it brings and as a form of “individual expression” was pretty radical, as most women, and especially most men, were not comfortable with the idea that being a housewife was similar to being a servant to one’s husband and children. But of course that changes when staying at home becomes one of many choices rather than your only available option. And then came birth control. Huzzah! Women who needed to work wanted a way to limit the number of pregnancies. Being pregnant and having a baby can make it difficult to hold down a job and also babies are diaper-using, stuff-breaking, consumptive machines. They basically eat money. And we love them. But birth control advocates like Margaret Sanger and Emma Goldman also argued that women should be able to enjoy sex without having children. To which men said, “Women can enjoy sex?” Believe it or not, that was seen as a pretty radical idea and it lead to changes in sexual behavior including more overall skoodilypooping. Goldman was arrested more than 40 times for sharing these dangerous ideas about female sexuality and birth control and she was eventually deported. Sanger, who worked to educate working class women about birth control, was sentenced to prison in 1916 for opening a clinic in Brooklyn that distributed contraceptive devices to poor immigrant women. The fight over birth control is important for at least three reasons. First, it put women into the forefront of debates about free speech in America. I mean, some of the most ardent advocates of birth control were also associated with the IWW and the Socialist Party. Secondly, birth control is also a public health issue and many women during the progressive era entered public life to bring about changes related to public health, leading the crusade against tuberculosis, the so-called White Plague, and other diseases. Thirdly, it cut across class lines. Having or not having children is an issue for all women, regardless of whether they went to college, and the birth control movement brought upper, middle, and lower class women together in ways that other social movements never did. Another group of Progressive women took up the role of addressing the problems of the poor and spearheaded the Settlement House movement. The key figure here was Jane Addams. My God, there are still Adamses in American history? Oh, she spells it Addams-family-Addams, not like founding-fathers-Adams. Anyway, she started Hull House in Chicago in 1889. Settlement houses became the incubators of the new field of social work, a field in which women played a huge part. And Addams became one of America’s most important spokespeople for progressive ideas. And yet in many places, while all of this was happening, women could not technically vote. But their increasing involvement in social movements at the turn of the 20th century led them to electoral politics. It’s true that women were voting before the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920. Voting is a state issue, and in many western states, women were granted the right to vote in the late 19th century. States could also grant women the right to run for office, which explains how the first Congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin, could vote against America’s entry into World War I in 1917. That said, the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment is a big deal in American history. It’s also a recent deal. Like, when my grandmothers were born, women could not vote in much of the United States. The amendment says that states cannot deny people the right to vote because they are women, which isn’t as interesting as the political organization and activity that led to its passage. Alright, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The suffrage movement was extremely fragmented. There was a first wave of suffrage, exemplified by the women at Seneca Falls, and this metamorphosed into the National American Women’s Suffrage Association, or NAWSA. Most of the leadership of NAWSA was made up of middle to upper class women, often involved in other progressive causes, who unfortunately sometimes represented the darker side of the suffrage movement. Because these upper class progressives frequently used nativist arguments to make their claims for the right to vote. They argued that if the vote could be granted to ignorant immigrants, some of whom could barely speak English, then it should also be granted to native born women. This isn’t to say that the elitist arguments won the day, but they should be acknowledged. By the early 20th century a new generation of college-educated activists had arrived on the scene. And many of these women were more radical than early suffrage supporters. They organized the National Women’s Party and, under the leadership of Alice Paul, pushed for the vote using aggressive tactics that many of the early generation of women’s rights advocates found unseemly. Paul had been studying in Britain between 1907 and 1910 where she saw the more militant women’s rights activists at work. She adopted their tactics that included protests leading to imprisonment and loud denunciations of the patriarchy that would make tumblr proud. And during World War I she compared Wilson to the Kaiser and Paul and her followers chained themselves to the White House fence. The activists then started a hunger strike during their 7-month prison sentence and had to be force-fed. Woodrow Wilson had half-heartedly endorsed women’s suffrage in 1916, but the war split the movement further. Most suffrage organizations believed that wartime service would help women earn respect and equal rights. But other activists, like many Progressives, opposed the war and regarded it as a potential threat to social reform. But, in the end, the war did sort of end up helping the cause. Patriotic support of the war by women, especially their service working in wartime industries, convinced many that it was just wrong to deny them the right to vote. And the mistreatment of Alice Paul and other women in prison for their cause created outrage that further pushed the Wilson administration to support enfranchising women. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, women’s long fight to gain the right to vote ended with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. But, in some ways, the final granting of the franchise was a bit anti-climactic. For one thing, it was overshadowed by the 18th Amendment, Prohibition, which affected both women and men in large numbers. Also Gatsbys. You could say a lot of bad things about Prohibition, and I have, but the crusade against alcohol did galvanize and politicize many women, and organizations such as the WCTU and the Anti-Saloon League introduced yet more to political activism. But, while the passage of the 19th amendment was a huge victory, Alice Paul and the National Women’s Party were unable to muster the same support for an Equal Rights Amendment. Paul believed that women needed equal access to education and employment opportunities. And here they came into contact with other women’s groups, especially the League of Women Voters and the Women’s Trade Union League, which opposed the ERA fearing that equal rights would mean an unraveling of hard-won benefits like mother’s pensions and laws limiting women’s hours of labor. So, the ERA failed, and then another proposed amendment that would have given Congress the power to limit child labor won ratification in only 6 states. So in many ways the period between 1890 and 1920, which roughly corresponds to the Progressive Era, was the high tide of women’s rights and political activism. It culminated in the ratification of the 19th amendment, but the right to vote didn’t lead to significant legislation that actually improved the lives of women, at least not for a while. Nor were there immediate changes in the roles that women were expected to play in the social order as wives and mothers. Still, women were able to increase their autonomy and freedom in the burgeoning consumer marketplace. But it’s important to note that like other oppressed populations in American history, women weren’t given these rights, they had to fight for the rights that were said to be inalienable. And we are all better off for their fight and for their victory. Women’s liberation is to be sure a complicated phrase and it will take a new turn in the Roaring 20s, which we’ll talk about next week. I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption to the Libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. I’m gonna go this way, Stan, just kiiidding! Suffrage -

Origins and ideology

The Canadian economy had boomed during the late 1920s and showed no sign of weakness, but during the 1930s the Great Depression swept across Canada and provoked mass unemployment, and this incited the LSR into action. The LSR believed that the roots of the Depression were laissez-faire capitalism and governance and that the "free" market was anything but. Politicians worked closely with businesses, securing interest-free loans, developing tariffs, and managing labor disputes; in short: manipulating markets. A small group of political businessmen controlled public policy and economic development and guided the centralization of finance and power into private hands. Widespread unemployment marked the Depression and served to underscore financial inequity. In the eyes of the LSR, the problem facing Canada was not an economic depression, it was a corrupt political economy.

Faced with what they believed to be profiteering politicians, a group of men and women were united in their resolve that this could not stand. Three key influences stood out among the members of this group: religious affiliation, maturation in an environment of war and urbanization, and intellectual cultivation in the university environment. These characteristics defined the group's ideals.

Believing the existing system was not practicable, the league set about promoting a new system. The solution to ending this and all depressions would be a planned economy, and the transformation of Canada from a royal commonwealth into a socialist commonwealth. To achieve this transformation, the league planned to perform research, and apply the results toward public education and public policy. However, because the LSR believed that the system was not only corrupt but corruptive, the league planned to lay its foundations beyond politics. Public education would take the form of books and lectures, and influence over policy would be achieved through the institutionalization of expert intellectuals. Politicians would call upon the league's extra-political organization to perform research, and recommend policy. In this way, the league hoped to minimize partisanship, and influence government policy writ large. Even so, the ideals of the LSR found them working closest with one political party, in particular, the avowedly socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF).

Political economy and the Great Depression

The Great Depression resulted in a protracted period of mass unemployment, and it was the impact unemployment had on Canadians that motivated the LSR into action. National unemployment peaked in the first half of 1933 at 32 percent; but 32 percent was only the average, in some towns unemployment reached nearly 50 percent.^[1] The LSR were roused, as they faced the ravages of unemployment in their classrooms, churches, and offices; "Everywhere hopelessness. A country without a purpose ... An industrious and intelligent people going to waste in idleness and despair."^[2]

For the LSR, the Depression was the inexorable result of laissez-faire philosophy. This philosophy had spread since the Act of Union in 1840, which began a transition from power structures that favored aristocracy to structures that favored business. The responsible government arrived shortly after the union and shifted influence from the governor to ministers. Powers that had previously been focused on the governor, became divided among ministers. No meaningful administrative structures were implemented to ensure that ministers remained responsive to the public, and ministers aligned themselves with capitalists. Free market governance became the consort of free-market capitalization. Legislation regulating conflicts of interest did not exist, and politicians worked openly with business. One former prime minister made the marriage of business with politics strikingly clear when he stated "my politics are railroads."^[3] The developmental history of Canada's political economy was central in the analysis of the LSR, and they later observed that "[m]onopolies are not an unlucky accident in our economic system, they are our economic system."^[4]

Previous economic fluctuations had not created the need for federal unemployment programs, and policy and tradition dictated that assistance was a local issue, because traditionally it had been locally tractable. Under the British North America Act of 1867 (BNA), the government received most revenue collection powers, and provinces became responsible for social relief, education, and health care. However, 60 years had passed since the BNA, and this was a different economy. The National Policy dramatically increased prairie populations, and when Depression hit, the prairies, in particular, could not manage social relief, and, along with other provinces, asked for federal aid. Federal politicians believed free markets would rebalance themselves, and refused assistance. Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King refused to attempt relief, claiming it would endanger the national budget. Conservative Prime Minister Richard Bedford Bennett declared that provinces should reduce wasteful spending. Laissez-faire ideology underpinned the policies of Liberals and Conservatives alike. Provinces became disgruntled, relationships with Ottawa became strained, and so it was that the crisis of capitalism triggered a crisis of federalism. "Here was the proof that the [political economy] built by the businessman and the old party politician was defective. The men who had presided over the construction of a complex modern civilization apparently did not know how to keep it running smoothly."^[5]

Moralism, intellectualism, and elitism: foundations of the LSR

In November 1930, the problems of political economy were the focus of discussion for a group of "radically minded [professors]",^[6] organized by the University of Toronto historian Frank Underhill. At the same time in Montreal, the legal scholar F. R. Scott was preparing a book examining the same problems.^[7] In August 1931, the two men met and discovered they had developed a similar analysis; instability and depression were born of a capitalistic political economy, and any permanent solution would be born of democratic socialism. Underhill proposed the formation of a research organization, styled after the British Fabians, modified to suit Canada. The organization's ideas would be spread in two ways; directly into the public mind through local associations and literature, and directly into government through an institution of intellectual elites that politicians could requisition to perform research and recommend policy. Scott agreed. Underhill also believed a socialist political party would shortly appear, and that there "should be a group of intellectuals that could provide the new party with a coherent platform."^[7] The men returned home, and Underhill established a group in Toronto while Scott did the same in Montreal.

These groups shared one important belief; that the objective study of social science yielded an inescapable conclusion: scientific socialism. Theirs was a scholarly disposition, and shared intellectualism aroused an elitist camaraderie. Educational distinction provided the group with a sense they were distinguished from the public and public servants;^[8] that amongst all reformists, they alone possessed the expertise necessary to develop corrective policies. The result was a highly principled and elitist political reformism, however, this reformism was not solely rationalistic in origin.

The twin inclinations of intellectual solidarity and moral solidarity motivated these academics. They were endowed not only with higher education, but also a belief in a higher purpose. Moralism was important to the group and had been engendered through lifelong religious association. Though not all members remained religious in adulthood, most had been influenced by religion since their youth. A partial survey of the league's leading members reveals the following; Frank Underhill: Flavelle scholar, raised a Presbyterian; F. R. Scott: Rhodes scholar, son of an archdeacon; Eugene Forsey: Rhodes scholar, son of a Methodist clergyman; Eric A. Havelock: respected economist, Christian Socialist; David Lewis: Rhodes scholar, a secular Jew, but deeply influenced by the Social Gospel and the Jewish Labour Movement.^[9] Artists who were among its early members included Jean Palardy and Jori Smith, both of Montreal.^[10]

Three important commonalities stood out among the LSR's founding members. Religion imbued an indelible morality; war and urbanization prompted sober reflection on suffering and reform, and modern education in the social sciences produced a propensity for rational analysis and a deterministic bent.

Scott and Underhill's groups exchanged drafts for a manifesto, attempting to strike a balance between pragmatism and radicalism. Their goal was to motivate all Canadians to critically examine Canada's political economy, and because the group did not want radicalism scaring potential members away, they opted to avoid the inclusion of the one word that best explained their politics: socialism. Drafts were exchanged for many months, and eventually, a meeting was scheduled in Toronto, for February 23, 1932. Seventy-five men and women attended the meeting, ratified the manifesto, and discussed the selection of a name. The Montreal group suggested the "League for Economic Democracy", however, the winning moniker came from the Torontonians, and when proceedings concluded the League for Social Reconstruction was born.^[11]

Social planning: the CCF and the Royal Commission

Later in 1932, the socialist party Underhill predicted materialized as the CCF. The CCF were social democrats and held the same ideas as the LSR regarding state theory, and hence the CCF was the LSR's best option for access to parliament. The CCF was also the best option for another reason: J. S. Woodsworth, honorary president of the LSR, was also the leader of the CCF. Because the LSR had been established outside the political system, the question was how to structure the relationship between the league and the CCF on the stated goal of education, and it was not clear they would stay if the LSR became the organ of a political party.^[12] Woodsworth proposed a solution for members of the LSR who desired affiliation; CCF Clubs. Club membership brought affiliation, and LSR members could thus affiliate with the CCF independently of affiliation with the LSR. The LSR was thus able to move forward as an independent research organization.^[13]

To promote and improve their ideas, the league discussed political economy with intellectuals and politicians across the nation. The LSR believed that because the Depression was national, its solution would be national as well, and they found sympathetic analyses amongst the intellectual community. Intellectuals concerned with social reform began to contemplate national reform.^[14] Common ground between the LSR and intellectual elites provided a program for action. Intellectuals felt that they needed to convince Canadians that government should assume an interventionist role; financial and social policies should be implemented at the national level, and stability would flow top downwards.^[15] Such an arrangement was not however possible under the BNA, and accordingly, the constitution would require modification.

By the mid-1930s, many modern intellectuals found work in government, and political bodies began to seek advice from extra-parliamentary intellectuals.^[16] In 1935, extra-political intellectual elites were included in a national conference on Dominion-provincial relations, however, the conference's primary purpose was to stop the flow of federal money to provinces, which was not what intellectuals had in mind.^[17] The initiatives put into place after the conference proved unproductive, and the movement was transmuted into the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations. The Commission was placed under the control of modern social scientists, including LSR member Frank Scott, and was instructed to provide recommendations for securing the economy and the federation. In 1940, the Commission reported that the Depression resulted from problems in the definition of the Canadian Dominion; the BNA had developed in the context of a wheat-timber-fish economy, and could not support Canada's mixed industrializing economy. Industrial growth had increased the complication of economic activity, but the political system had not made corresponding advancements. To solve the Depression, the taxation powers and fiscal responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments required readjustment. The government should control all unemployment insurance programs, assume all provincial debts, collect all income taxes, and make equalization payments to needy provinces.

Premiers met the Prime Minister in 1941 to discuss the recommendations, and with war raging in Europe, the Premiers agreed to the Commission's proposals. After the war, Prime Minister King was eager to preserve the government's new powers, and a separate agreement was reached with the provinces, making the Commission's recommendations into a permanent policy. Politicians of all stripes were eager to mitigate against the economic and social problems experienced after World War One, and acceded to the implementation of central planning measures. Reflecting on the Commission, historian Doug Owram noted that the report "was not so much the product of the public hearings as ... of the intellectual network of the 1930s... Indeed, the results of the study had been conceived even before its appointment."^[18] The report itself became a vehicle for sharing data in such a fashion that it supported the conclusions of the intellectuals who wrote it, with an eye towards converting its readers into advocates of centralization.^[19]

The ideas of the LSR proved instrumental in introducing successful social planning measures into government, however disenchantment with socialism had grown as World War Two approached, and the LSR itself was reduced to the point of dissolution. With CCF related activities expanding, the league finally disbanded in 1942. In the mid-1940s two members of the LSR held prominent positions within the CCF: Frank Scott became the National Chairman,^[20] and Professor George M. A. Grube became the president of the Ontario CCF.^[21]

Publications

The LSR made its views known through the magazine New Commonwealth (formerly the Farmer's Sun, publication of the United Farmers of Ontario until purchased by Graham Spry). The group further contributed to Canada's political and intellectual fields with two books, Social Planning for Canada (1935) and Democracy Needs Socialism (1938). Canadian Forum was saved from bankruptcy by the LSR, which was acquired in the journal in 1936 and continued its publication. With these texts, social and economic change policies were popularized.^[22]

Notes

^ L.S.R. (1935), p. 13
^ Lewis & Scott (2001), p. 1
^ Christian & Campbell (1983), p. 79
^ L.S.R. (1938), p. 8
^ Owram (1986), p. 162
^ Horn (1980), pp. 17–18
^ ^a ^b Horn (1980), pp. 20-21
^ Owram (1986), p. 138
^ Horn (1980), pp. 19-26
^ Niergarth, Kirk (2015). The Dignity of Every Human Being: New Brunswick Artists and Canadian Culture between the Great Depression and the Cold War. University of Toronto Press. p. 129. ISBN 9781442613898. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
^ Horn (1980), p. 27
^ Horn (1980), p. 37
^ Horn (1980), p. 38
^ Owram (1986), pp. 223–226
^ Owram (1986), pp. 225–226
^ Owram (1986), p. 189
^ Owram (1986), p. 228
^ Owram (1986), p. 239
^ Owram (1986), pp. 239–240
^ Richardson, Keith (1988). "Scott, Francis Reginald". Canadian Encyclopedia. Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig. Archived from the original on 2010-02-15.
^ Special to the Star (1945-11-26). "Drew flouting 48-hour order is C.C.F. charge". The Toronto Daily Star. Toronto. p. 17.
^ Horn (1980), p. vii

References

Angus, H.F. "Social Planning For Canada. By the Research Committee of the League for Social Reconstruction (Eugene Forsey, J. King Gordon, Leonard Marsh, J. F. Parkinson, F. R. Scott, Graham Spry, F. H. Underhill) (Book Review)." Pacific Affairs 9, no. 3 (1936): 452-454. Chadwyck PAO Collection 2 (accessed January 23, 2009).
Bélanger, Claude (2001-02-26). "The Rowell-Sirois Report and Canadian Federalism during the Great Depression (1929-1939)". Studies on the Canadian Constitution and Canadian Federalism. Montreal: Marianopolis College. Archived from the original on 2011-08-20. Retrieved 2011-08-14.
Christian, William; Campbell, Colin (1983). Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada: Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists, Nationalists (2 ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. ISBN 0-07-548575-3.
Douglas, T.C.; LaPierre, L.L. (1971). Essays on the left: Essays in honour of T.C. Douglas. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. ISBN 0-7710-4698-7.
Forbes, H. D. (1985). H.D. Forbes (ed.). Canadian Political Thought. Toronto: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-540457-2.
Horn, Michiel (1980). The League for Social Reconstruction: Intellectual origins of the democratic left in Canada, 1930–1942. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-5487-0.
League for Social Reconstruction (1975). Social Planning for Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-1953-6. 1975 reprint by the University of Toronto Press of the 1935 T. Nelson & Sons edition.
League for Social Reconstruction. Research Committee. (1938). Democracy Needs Socialism. Toronto: T. Nelson & Sons.
Lewis, David; Frank Scott (2001) [1943]. Make this YOUR CANADA: A Review of CCF History and Policy. Canada: Hybrid Publishers Co-operative Ltd. ISBN 0-9689709-0-7.
Mills, Sean (2005). "When Democratic Socialists Discovered Democracy: The League for Social Reconstruction Confronts the 'Quebec Problem'". Canadian Historical Review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 86 (1): 53–81. doi:10.3138/chr/86.1.53.
Owram, Doug (1986). The Government Generation: Canadian Intellectuals and the State, 1900–1945. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-2581-1.
"Statute of Westminster, 1931". UK Statute Law Database. United Kingdom: The National Archives. Retrieved 2009-03-11.
Young, Walter D. (1969). The Anatomy of a Party: The National CCF, 1932–61. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-5221-5.