3. Theodore Roosevelt: Trust-Busting President

Question

Not everyone admired big business the way Rockefeller and Carnegie did. Many thought big businesses took advantage of workers and consumers. Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to forbid any form of business monopoly in 1890. The law was not enforced for years because the law was so vague and big businesses were so powerful. The Sherman Antitrust Act got its first real test only after Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901.

Breaking a Railroad Trust Roosevelt came into the White House with a reputation as a reformer. He attacked business monopolies with great energy. “We do not want to destroy corporations,” he assured the public, “but we do wish to make them [serve] the public good.”

Roosevelt’s first target was a railroad monopoly called the Northern Securities Company. It controlled nearly every rail line between Chicago and the Pacific Northwest. Roosevelt had the Justice Department sue Northern Securities for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Supreme Court ordered the monopoly to be broken up into smaller railroad companies.

Trust-Busting Expands McClure's Magazine began publishing Ida Tarbell’s history of the Standard Oil Trust after Roosevelt sued Northern Securities. Tarbell documented how Rockefeller had driven his competitors out of business. He did this by making secret deals with railroads to ship his oil at lower prices than other oil companies paid. She explained how Rockefeller had cut his oil prices below what the oil cost to produce to attract customers away from other oil companies. After his competitors went out of business, Rockefeller raised prices again.

A shocked public demanded action. Roosevelt filed suit against not only Standard Oil, but against 44 other trusts as well. Standard Oil was “busted” in 1911. This meant it was broken up into five major oil companies and several smaller ones.

President Roosevelt thought that government regulation, or enforcement of laws, was a good long-term solution to bad business behavior. “The great development of industrialism,” he said, “means that there must be an increase in the supervision exercised by the Government over business enterprise.”4. Robert La Follette: Fighter for Political Reform
Robert La Follette of Wisconsin ran for reelection to Congress and lost in 1890. So he returned to his work as a lawyer. Then Senator Philetus Sawyer, a powerful Republican Party boss, reportedly offered La Follette a bribe to "fix" a court case in 1891. Sawyer thought he could pay La Follette to guarantee that he would win the case. An insulted La Follette reported the bribery attempt to the newspapers.

An equally insulted Sawyer chose to crush La Follette. But "Fighting Bob" was not an easy man to put down. Sawyer made him so mad that La Follette ran for governor of Wisconsin. Then he could put the party bosses out of business.

In Wisconsin and other states, political machines, or groups run by party bosses, controlled local and state governments. Corrupt bosses were known to bribe voters and "stuff" ballot boxes with fake votes to make sure their candidates were elected.

Thus, the bosses—not the people—chose each party's candidates for office. The candidates, men like lumber millionaire Sawyer, usually represented powerful business interests. Reformers like La Follette had little chance of reaching voters without the party's support. La Follette was beat twice by Wisconsin's powerful Republican "machine." He finally won election as governor in 1900.

Once he took office, La Follette pushed reforms that put the people in charge of politics. Wisconsin became the first state to adopt the direct primary. This was an system that allowed party members, not bosses, to choose party candidates. More than half the states had accepted the "Wisconsin idea" by 1916. People began choosing their leaders in primary elections. Reform governors swept into office across the nation.

Oregon passed three other reforms that put power into the hands of the people. The initiative allowed citizens to enact laws by a popular vote. The referendum allowed voters to overturn an existing law. The recall allowed voters to remove an elected official from office.

What La Follette said all these reforms had in common was a belief that each state could become a place where "the opportunities of all its people are more equal … [and] human life is safer and sweeter."
DOK 3 Question:
Using evidence from Teach TCI Lesson 20: The Progressive Era, evaluate the extent to which the Progressive movement improved life in the United States. Identify at least two specific reforms or policies, explain their impact on different groups of people (e.g., workers, women, children, immigrants), and analyze whether the benefits outweighed the limitations or unintended consequences.
Be sure to support your response with details from the text and include a comparison of perspectives from the time period.

Answer 1

The Progressive Movement, which spanned the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States, aimed to address the socioeconomic challenges arising from rapid industrialization, urbanization, and political corruption. Two significant reforms of the Progressive Era were antitrust legislation, exemplified by Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting policies, and political reforms championed by figures like Robert La Follette. Both reforms sought to improve life for various groups within society, yet they also faced limitations and unintended consequences.

1. Trust-Busting Legislation

The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed in 1890 and enforced by President Roosevelt, marked a critical step toward regulating monopolistic practices. Roosevelt’s first major antitrust action was against the Northern Securities Company, which held a monopoly on railroad transportation in the Northwest. The Supreme Court's decision to dissolve this trust in 1904 was significant in promoting competition and protecting consumers.

The impact on different groups was profound:

• Workers: The dissolution of large monopolies meant that workers could benefit from more job opportunities as smaller companies emerged. This fostered a more competitive job market, potentially leading to better wages and working conditions. However, counterarguments suggest that the volatility inherent in a more competitive market could also result in job insecurity, as companies struggled to survive against their rivals.

• Consumers: For consumers, trust-busting reduced prices and improved product quality, as competition often leads to better services and lower costs. The breaking up of the Standard Oil Trust in 1911 into multiple companies is a notable example, as it allowed for fairer pricing and more choices for consumers. However, the oil industry remained powerful even after the breakup, raising the question of whether true competition was achieved or if larger entities simply adapted to the new framework.

Overall, while Theodore Roosevelt's policies aimed at preventing corporate malfeasance benefited workers and consumers by dismantling monopolistic practices, they did not entirely eliminate corporate influence on politics and the economy, suggesting a limitation in the efficacy of trust-busting.

2. Political Reforms by Robert La Follette

Robert La Follette was instrumental in promoting political reforms in Wisconsin that aimed to dismantle the power of political machines controlled by party bosses. He established the direct primary system, allowing party members, as opposed to party leaders, to select candidates. He also advocated for initiatives, referendums, and recalls, giving power back to the people.

The impact on various groups included:

• Voters: These reforms empowered voters by increasing their ability to influence the political process directly. The direct primary system allowed for a broader selection of candidates, who could be more representative of the public's interests rather than those of the political machine. This greater participation had the potential to lead to a government more accountable to constituents.

• Political Machines and Business Interests: For corrupt political operatives and those aligning with special business interests, these reforms posed a significant challenge. The loss of control that party bosses faced disrupted established power dynamics, leading to a power shift that, while enhancing democracy, could also encourage instability and unpredictability as new candidates emerged.

La Follette's reforms ultimately fostered greater democratic engagement but highlighted a limitation in addressing systemic issues. While empowering voters, they did not address the socio-economic inequalities that remained prevalent, leaving marginalized groups, such as immigrants and low-income individuals, still vulnerable to exploitation.

In conclusion, the Progressive Movement, through reforms like trust-busting and political restructuring, significantly improved life for many Americans by promoting fairness and giving power back to the electorate. However, the limitations and unintended consequences of these reforms indicate that while progress was made, substantial systemic issues persisted, showcasing the complexity of reform efforts during this transformative era. The benefits often depended on the perspective of the beneficiaries, suggesting that while some flourished, others continued to face obstacles in their pursuit of equity and opportunity.