Business Consolidation and Regulation in the Late 19th Century

Front

Successful entrepreneurs like Carnegie and Rockefeller drove smaller competitors out of business.

Back

Impact of Carnegie and Rockefeller on competition.

Front

Falling prices and 'cutthroat competition' led rival companies to join together.

Back

Effects of competition on business consolidation.

Front

Definition of a holding company.

Back

A holding company owned a controlling number of shares in other companies.

Front

Monopolists had less incentive to improve products due to lack of competition.

Back

Impact of monopolies on product improvement.

Front

Monopolists could raise prices to earn excessive profits.

Back

Pricing power of monopolists.

Front

Trustees exercised control over different companies in a trust.

Back

Trustee control in business trusts.

Front

Early government regulation aimed to control monopolistic practices.

Back

Purpose of early government regulation.

Front

Wabash v. Illinois (1886)

Back

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not regulate railroads running through several states as it was "interstate commerce." Only Congress could regulate interstate commerce.

Front

U.S. v. E.C. Knight Company (1895)

Back

The Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act could not break up a monopoly controlling over 90% of U.S. sugar refining, as it was a manufacturing monopoly, not "interstate trade."

Front

Government Response in the Gilded Age

Back

The federal government took few steps to curb "Big Business," often helping business by not imposing regulations or taxes, and not protecting workers or consumers.