Why did the Republicans pass and support the Sherman Antitrust Act?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 11:02:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Why did the Republicans pass and support the Sherman Antitrust Act?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why did the Republicans pass and support the Sherman Antitrust Act?  (Read 615 times)
Don Vito Corleone
bruhgmger2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,268
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 01, 2020, 05:59:49 PM »

The Republicans were then and are now the party of business. Yet the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed into law in 1890 with the support of the Republican Senate (with a very large majority) and was signed into law by Republican President Benjamin Harrison. Why did they do this?
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,811
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2020, 07:51:37 PM »

The Rs were the compassionate conservative party of William Howard Taft, whose son Bob Taft was a moderate Republican in OH. Up until the Nixon and Goldwater days, the Rs were the people's party and put in place Antitrust provisions, so that Businesses dont monopolize ecommerce.

The Southern Strategy was implemented by Barry Goldwater, and Reagan transformed it to the tax cuts for the rich. Which companies had to monopolize and coopt together for survival, like AT and T became Amertech. Many Banks had to come together and form Big Banks due to the 2008 Recession.
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2020, 08:20:00 PM »

The Republican Party did generally have a close and sympathetic relationship with businesses, but it wasn't a total slave to big business and it did have other electoral concerns. For example, Harrison also signed into law the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and one of the first major conservationist laws, the General Revision Act.

By the late 19th century, there was a widely-held notion that some businesses (particularly railroads) had gotten a little too big and powerful and that the federal government should step in to do something. The Populist Party and its antecedents were calling for more far-reaching reforms, but two fairly weak laws were passed instead: the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (passed by a Republican Senate and a Democratic House, and signed into law by Cleveland) and the Sherman Act.

Ultimately, the Sherman Act was largely rendered toothless due to weak presidential enforcement (by Harrison, Cleveland, and McKinley) and Supreme Court decisions like United States v. E. C. Knight Co. It wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt took office that the U.S. got serious about breaking up trusts.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2020, 10:10:05 PM »

The Rs were the compassionate conservative party of William Howard Taft, whose son Bob Taft was a moderate Republican in OH. Up until the Nixon and Goldwater days, the Rs were the people's party and put in place Antitrust provisions, so that Businesses dont monopolize ecommerce.

This would come as a hell of a surprise to the Populists in 1890s. Throughout this period the Democrats were the ones taking the lead on opposition to monopolies as a extension of the tariff issue, which they credited as helping preserve them while free trade would break them up. Cleveland had already passed the ICC as was earlier posted.

The reason that Harrison did that was the same reason that Bush passed NCLB or Medicare Part D, co-opt a policy from the other side and use it to gain favor with key voting blocks. Republicans dependent on winning working class voters scared crapless that free trade Democrats from the South were coming to dismantle their factories and their jobs along with it. However, such fearmongering only gets you so far and with the growing opposition building to trusts and monopoly, Harrison and Sherman were trying to get ahead of an issue that could give the Democrats and/or the Populists a wedge against them in their base region. It is the same reason why they moderated on the silver issue during that time period (remember Harrison had added several states to boost his reelection chances, which would have favored Silver and later backed WJB).
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2020, 10:43:20 PM »

The Rs were the compassionate conservative party of William Howard Taft, whose son Bob Taft was a moderate Republican in OH.
TR felt that William Howard Taft had betrayed Progressivism, hence the 1912 primaries, and Robert Taft led the fight against the centrist “Eastern Establishment”.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2020, 10:54:15 PM »

In addition to what Yankee said, Sherman in particular —who was an architect of the postwar Republican economic policy as secretary of the treasury under Rutherford B. Hayes —eventually grew concerned that the pro-business policies of the immediate postwar period had gone too far and came to believe that some regulation was necessary to stabilize the market. This was the same rationale that led him to support the Silver Purchase Act which bore his name. In the same way a doctor might prescribe nicotine patches as an alternative to cigarettes, Sherman and Harrison moderated on these issues not because they suddenly decided soft money and regulation were great, but to ensure the long-term viability of the capitalist system. "The ends justify the means," as the kids are saying these days.
Logged
Don Vito Corleone
bruhgmger2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,268
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2020, 10:33:01 PM »
« Edited: June 03, 2020, 10:36:40 PM by Don Vito Corleone »

In addition to what Yankee said, Sherman in particular —who was an architect of the postwar Republican economic policy as secretary of the treasury under Rutherford B. Hayes —eventually grew concerned that the pro-business policies of the immediate postwar period had gone too far and came to believe that some regulation was necessary to stabilize the market. This was the same rationale that led him to support the Silver Purchase Act which bore his name. In the same way a doctor might prescribe nicotine patches as an alternative to cigarettes, Sherman and Harrison moderated on these issues not because they suddenly decided soft money and regulation were great, but to ensure the long-term viability of the capitalist system. "The ends justify the means," as the kids are saying these days.
Was this Bismarckian embrace of regulation also a driving force behind the Republican Progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt?
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2020, 01:02:49 PM »

In addition to what Yankee said, Sherman in particular —who was an architect of the postwar Republican economic policy as secretary of the treasury under Rutherford B. Hayes —eventually grew concerned that the pro-business policies of the immediate postwar period had gone too far and came to believe that some regulation was necessary to stabilize the market. This was the same rationale that led him to support the Silver Purchase Act which bore his name. In the same way a doctor might prescribe nicotine patches as an alternative to cigarettes, Sherman and Harrison moderated on these issues not because they suddenly decided soft money and regulation were great, but to ensure the long-term viability of the capitalist system. "The ends justify the means," as the kids are saying these days.
Was this Bismarckian embrace of regulation also a driving force behind the Republican Progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt?
To a great extent, I would argue yes, it was. Roosevelt in particular was always careful to distinguish between the "good" trusts that were a force for societal and economic progress and the few "bad" trusts that used unethical tactics to eliminate competition and drive up prices. (The story about the teddy bear is actually a useful anecdote for understanding this mindset: he wasn't anti-hunting, but he believed in playing fair.) Hence despite his reputation as a trust buster, he actually prosecuted fewer trusts than either of his immediate successors; one reason for his primary challenge to Taft in 1912 was actually that he believed Taft had taken things too far.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2020, 06:21:10 PM »

Ask Gingrich: https://thehill.com/video/campaign/203265-gingrich-romney-firm-bain-capital-undermined-capitalism
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 11 queries.