Economic Growth in the Late 19th Century Essay

During the 1860’s America was in a period of economic hardship due to the ongoing demand for materials and money to fund the war. In the South, sufficient money and materials were hard to acquire because the southern economy still depended on the labor of slaves to produce their goods and income rather than factories. The Northern economy used numerous factories to produce goods and make profit for the war, but they still did not have technology that was advanced enough to easily produce all the necessary materials and money. After the civil war, America embarked on a journey of economic expansion and unification for the nation. In the late 19th century, government policies, technological advancements and population changes contributed to

e. Workers: the workers were given less money when the prices of the goods decreased.

In the past, the nation’s government took the “laissez-faire” approach to dealing with the economy and/or free market affairs. The government intervened as little as possible, asserting the belief felt that if left alone, economic problems would be resolved without government interference. However, this approach was not guaranteed, and at times, the government had to put aside the “laissez-faire” approach of the past. The government had no other choice but to intervene in these instances to return balance to the economy and protect its citizens it served. The government changed both its approach and its size through programs initiated by the Industrial Revolution, New Deal programs during and following the Great Depression, and World

Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word “commerce” is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress’ power over commerce is first laid out in the case of

Arguably, the biggest flaw in the government established by the Articles of Confederation was Congress’ lack of financial resources. Economically, the national government could borrow money, but that was the extent of their abilities. Congress could neither control interstate commerce nor collect taxes from states. [Document A] displays the state perspectives on the government’s financial capability. The reasons as to which why the government could not regulate economy listed in Document A portray the economic dominance

The period between the American Revolution and the Civil War had great significance for the United States' economy. Although initially the economy seemed unstable at first, after the second war that America fought with England, the economy began to show considerable growth thereafter. This can be seen as the result of the cotton trade in the South and the eventual industrialisation of America, especially in the Northeast and later the West. From the invention of cotton gins to the adaptation of railways one can see how the United States used their opportunities and resources to their full advantage, transforming their economy to be able to compete among the worlds leading economical countries.

The United States government encouraged economic growth greatly between the years 1860-1900. The United States government during the Civil War era was run by the Republicans. The Republicans held the majority in Congress in 1860 because the southern states had seceded from the Union. This majority gave the republicans the power to implement the policies in their platform which was based on the American System. The Republican platform of 1860 was centered on encouraging economic growth and developing a national economy. A few specific policies that the Republicans passed were the Pacific Railway Act, the Morill Tariff, and the Morill Land Grant Act. Each of these three policies were aimed at encouraging economic growth in our nation. The republicans passed many laws with the sole purpose of encouraging economic growth and developing a strong economy. The US government could be considered somewhat laissez-faire in their neglect to place much needed regulations on big business and corporations. Despite this fact, the United States government was definitely not laissez-faire during this time period due to the fact that they took a very active role in our nation’s economy. Without the policies passed by the national government during this time period, it is highly unlikely that our nation’s economy would have grown to the extent that it did, and the United States would not be the

The Sherman (related to preventing one company from becoming too powerful) Act 1890, the purpose of the act was to destroy (companies with too much power) that were using their power to harm (community of people/all good people in the world); and (one company that controls too much) is someone that has total control over a clearly stated/particular company). In the 1800s there were a many amount of businesses growing in the United States. The U.S was making people pay for products (that are bought and sold) or services they gave/given at high price that put pressure on people because some people didn't have the money to pay for everything other people have. The congress passed the act in 1890 it was the first to be passed. The Act had to go

The author of essay five addressed the second essay prompt in exam 2. The second prompt requires the writer to show that the American government did not truly practice what it preached when it came to laissez-faire economic policy. Prior to the Constitutional Revolution of 1937 the government’s economic policy was a “business tool”; after 1937, the government addressed the needs of the people. In order to effectively argue this position, it is necessary to demonstrate three things; first, that the American government’s economic policy did not reflect laissez-faire doctrine because it used government power to protect business interests, second, an explanation of the Constitutional Revolution of 1937, and third, that the Revolution resulted in

Antitrust law in the United States is a collection of federal and state government laws regulating the conduct and organization of business corporations with the intent to promote fair competition in an open-market economy for the benefit of the public. Congress passed the first antitrust statute, the Sherman Antitrust Act, in 1890 in response to the public outrage toward big business. In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act. (The Antitrust Laws. Web.)

Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”

Almost one hundred and fifty years after the birth of the United States of America, the country and its people stepped unabashed into the modern age. Following years of gloom and war, the public desired change. Though it took some years after the close of World War 1, the United States began to evolve. With high tariffs, federal tax cuts, and the increase of mass production among other things, America’s economy began to grow rapidly. Economic growth occurred simultaneously with social and cultural growth and these factors brought WW1 America toward the modern age.

With the support of President Benjamin Harrison, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. John Sherman, a lawyer and senator from Ohio, was the author of this legislation that attempted to curb the growth of monopolies. The act declared illegal any business combination that sought to restrain trade or commerce. Penalties for violation of the act included a $5,000 fine or/and a year's imprisonment. The act was unable to achieve its original objectives.

Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in part, states that “every contract, combination… or conspiracy, in the restraint of trade or commerce… is declared to be illegal.” (Sherman Act, 2006). This law provides “a comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade (Northern Pacific Railway Company vs. United States, 1958; Reiter vs. Sonotone Corporation, 1979). It relies on a fundamental belief in supply and demand (Baum Research & Development Company vs. Hillerich & Bradsby, 1998).

In the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century of England, the Industrial Revolution occurred. It is marked as an important movement in history because it introduced steam-driven machinery, large factories, and a new working class. With new manufacturing, job opportunities opened up. As the demand for employees rose, that is when the working class also began to rise. However, it not only included adults but children as well. The main reason for children to work is because it benefits the employers and their families economically. Employers made profit by having children work for low wages, and the money the children made would go towards the family income and necessities to survive. The low adult wages would not suffice for a neutral family or extended, so children had no choice but to work and help support their family. Although in need of money, there were too many dangers involved when the children were working. As a result of this, the state legislation had Acts passed for the children’s safety. The Industrial Revolution had many upsides in modernizing England, but it also uncovered that children should not be seen as workers needing money, but as young human beings that need education and protection, and the only way to initiate this is with the involvement of the state.