I'm not going to touch on the wider question of business opposition to intervention - although I have doubts on that score - but Henry Ford's reluctance was driven by the opposite assumption.

Ford had long been convinced that war was a product of profiteers. He placed the cause of the war squarely with "greedy financial groups seeking to extend their dominion" and argued that the US was being pulled into a European war by a cabal of armaments manufacturers (eg the Du Ponts). He remained a prominent opponent of the war until Pearl Harbour.

This at least was a reflection of Ford's personal and long-standing isolationist and pacifist tendencies. In political form these went back to 1915 at least, when he'd been one of the most prominent opponents of entry into that war. He'd railed against intervention, sponsored anti-war advertising and been involved in the Peace Ship fiasco. All this was at his own cost and, in the case of the Peace Ship, proved highly embarrassing.

So there's little doubt that Ford's anti-war position was a deeply-held personal belief. That doesn't address the broader issues that influenced US business' attitude towards the war, but the Ford Motor Co.'s opposition to war was driven by Henry Ford.

Source: Steven Watts, The People's Tycoon