From African to Yankee. Robert J. William Dean Howells. Aunt Phillis's Cabin. Mary H. From Farm Boy to Senator. Mark Twain, A Biography, Vol. Eva March Tappan. Recollections of a Varied Life. George Cary Eggleston. Horatio Bridge. Slave Narrative Six Pack 2 Illustrated. Various Artists. William G. My Day: Reminiscences of a Long Life. Sara Agnes Rice Pryor. Richard Francis Burton. The Poetical Works of Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Nathaniel Hawthorne. The Gilded Age, Part 2. The Gilded Age, Part 5. The Gilded Age, Part 4. Vielen Dank! Die Rezension muss mindestens 50 Zeichen umfassen.
Introduction to the Gilded Age (video) | Khan Academy
Der Titel sollte mindestens 4 Zeichen umfassen. Ihr Display-Name sollte mindestens 2 Zeichen umfassen. Sie haben diese Rezension erfolgreich gemeldet. Sie haben folgende Bewertung und Rezension eingereicht. Oktober, Weiter einkaufen. Andernfalls werden diese beim Bezahlen automatisch entfernt. Weiter einkaufen Checkout Weiter einkaufen. Kurzbeschreibung anschauen. Bewertungen und Buchrezensionen 0 0 Sterne-Bewertungen 0 Bewertungen.
Gesamtbewertung Noch keine Bewertungen 0. Sollten wir uns diese Rezension noch einmal genauer ansehen? Nein, abbrechen Ja, melden Vielen Dank! Rezension verfassen. Socially, the period was marked by large-scale immigration from Germany and Scandinavia to the industrial centers and to western farmlands, the deepening of religious organizations, the rapid growth of high schools, and the emergence of a managerial and professional middle class. In terms of immigration, after , the old immigration of Germans, British, Irish, and Scandinavians slackened.
The United States was producing large numbers of new unskilled jobs every year, and to fill them came individuals from Italy, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Russia, Greece and other points in southern and central Europe, as well as from French Canada. During this period, African Americans lost many civil rights gained during Reconstruction. Anti-black violence, lynchings, segregation, legal racial discrimination, and expressions of white supremacy increased.
Conservative, white Democratic governments in the South passed Jim Crow legislation, creating a system of legal racial segregation in public and private facilities. Blacks were separated in schools and hospitals, and had to use separate sections in some restaurants and public transportation systems. They often were barred from certain stores, or forbidden to use lunchrooms, restrooms, and fitting rooms. Because they could not vote, they could not serve on juries, which meant they had little if any legal recourse in the system. Blacks who were economically successful faced reprisals or sanctions.
Through violence and legal restrictions, whites often prevented blacks from working as common laborers, much less as skilled artisans or in the professions. Under such conditions, even the most ambitious and talented black people found it extremely difficult to advance. The end of the Gilded Age coincided with the Panic of , a deep depression, which lasted until and marked a major political realignment in the election of This productive but divisive era was followed by the Progressive Era.
Built in , it typifies the excesses of Gilded Age wealth. Skip to main content. In the following years the Illinois legislature passed several laws that were typical of the Granger laws enacted in other Midwestern states. One required that railroads charge uniform rates for any class of goods. A second act created a Board of Warehouse Commissioners, which was given the power to prescribe maximum rates. A third set maximum rates for passenger service. Another, which was destined to become the subject of the United States Supreme Court opinion in Munn v. Some of these were practical complaints.
Railroad leaders argued that public authorities, be they legislatures or commissions, were not competent to determine proper rates and that the rates they set would be unfair. And they seemed to have seen fit. Railroad historian, Thomas C. Their advice set off a flurry of lawsuits in both the state and federal courts.
The Gilded Age, Part 6.
The reason was that Contract Clause doctrine included several exceptions to the inviolability of the corporate franchise. Under standard Contract Clause doctrine of the time, even a reserve clause would not give a state the power to defeat or substantially impair the essential object of the grant or any rights vested under it. Redfield, , I A corporation might turn to the contract clause to claim its franchise was exclusive and the state could not offer a new grant to a competitor. It might claim exemption from taxation, or from subsequent state regulation.
It was so useful in this regard that some contemporary observers noted that the clause, more than any other provision of the Constitution, was a source of excessive and angry controversy. Others charged that the Contract Clause was the bastion of corporate privilege and a shield for corporate power. Ely, , Despite its usefulness in any particular case, however, traditional Contract Clause doctrine did not provide what railroad leaders wanted most—a constitutional condemnation of state rate making authority in general.
Ely , Attorneys for the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad proposed the new theory to challenge the validity of a Wisconsin maximum rate law. The majority of the Court rejected this argument and upheld the rate regulation. Where reformers maintained that the traditions of popular sovereignty and democracy justified or even required regulation, railroad leaders and their lawyers argued that the traditions of individual liberty and limited government prohibited it.
Charles B. Historian George H. Miller has convincingly demonstrated that the call for reform originated in the business communities of small town America. Moreover, the theoretical underpinnings of reform can only be described as radical if we are willing to describe the American Constitution itself as radical. The theory of inalienable popular sovereignty that was so evident in the Illinois Constitutional Convention derives from one of the most revered ideals of the American founding.
Warren Bridge It was also a matter of balancing property rights against the rights of the community. Thomas M. Cooley was firm that a legislature could not bargain away the police power of the state even by an express grant. Cooley, , The history of economic regulation in early America makes it clear that most people and legislators thought it was. Americans accepted the distinction between the right of property and the rules of conduct under which property may be used. Siegel, , Licensing, building and regulating public markets, controlling prices or quality of common goods, use of and access to waterways, eminent domain law, public trust doctrine, and the law of nuisance are common examples of states regulating the economy in the public interest.
And the list goes on. Scheiber , Novak, , Mark, Moreover, they justified regulation not only in terms of balancing government power against individual liberty, but also in terms of protecting the rights of the public. Alger to support the point. We think it is a settled principle, growing out of the nature of a well ordered civil society, that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it may be so regulated, that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the rights of the community.
This general rule applied to railroads as much as any other business and, although many states gave companies flexibility to set their own rates, regulation of railroad rates was a normal practice.
Miller, , 31, Ely , The lawyers who represented the railroads in the Granger Cases were among the most distinguished lawyers in America. They must have realized that under contract clause doctrine, as it stood, they really did not have very good cases. Yet they pressed on, in all likelihood because they had a purposeful and calculated desire to change the status of the law. They wanted to establish a doctrine that the Constitution guaranteed a fundamental right to be free of the type of price regulations created in the Granger laws.
Such a doctrine would remove the issue of regulation from the political process. The tactic of using the Fourteenth Amendment as a barrier to government regulation, however, was novel at the time.
- The Gilded Age | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History?
- English to Spanish and Italian Dictionary.
- The Gilded Age, Part 6. eBook;
- Sign up to like post?
Dissenting opinions in the The Slaughterhouse Cases , the first case to interpret the new Amendment, did support the idea that it provided protection for business. Railroad leaders, who may have understood this limitation, nevertheless clearly intended to initiate a campaign to bring regulation within the protections of the due process clause. No pains must be spared upon this defense. It will take a great deal of time and much labor, perhaps more than any suit the company has had. Illinois would provide the first proving ground to test the theory.
Contract Clause arguments were not available in Munn because unlike the other Granger cases it did not involve a railroad and it did not involve a corporation. When Munn v.
Illinois reached the Supreme Court, William G. Goudy and John N. It traces its roots to the Magna Carta and is found in most state constitutions. Constitution for almost a century before Munn.
Go to Page
Its most fundamental meaning was that no person could be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of proper judicial hearing and procedure. In Munn , however, company attorneys argued that due process promised more than a trial according to settled judicial procedure. The guarantee, they said, was also meant to protect private rights from arbitrary government interference. This theory concentrated on the substance of legislation rather than the procedure by which the law was enforced. Substantive due process, as it thus came to be called, would give the federal judiciary the authority to overrule state legislation that interfered with individual rights.
Everything which may pass under the form of [legislative] enactment is not considered the law of the land. Goudy, , They could also draw upon some state court opinions to support their argument. The most well known of these was Wynehamer v. It would be easy enough for them to establish the general proposition that property rights fell among those liberties the Constitution was intended to protect. Nobody would disagree with that basic contention. The Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Contract Clause all contained provisions that protected property. Goudy, , , Jewett, , 28 Rate regulation, they said, had the same effect.
Jewett made this abundantly clear. Legislation fixing prices represented an arbitrary and irresponsible power, he said, a power practically to annihilate private property by destroying the value of its use. Jewett, , Writing for a 7 to 2 majority in Munn v. Illinois , Chief Justice Waite upheld the Illinois warehouse regulations. In the process of explaining why the Court had upheld the regulations, the Chief Justice made some concessions.
Statutes regulating the use of private property do not necessarily deprive the owner of his property without due process of law, Waite wrote. His reasoning also reflected a personal discomfort with the absolutist version of property rights that Jewett and Goudy favored, and a keen appreciation of the ideals of popular sovereignty and the rights of the people.
Unlike the majority, however, he did not believe that regulation of rates fell within the police power. Field did not give us much help in determining why he reached that conclusion.
Constitutional provisions intended for the protection of property, he insisted, should be liberally construed. Waite would assume that the legislation is valid unless proven otherwise. If there is doubt, the express will of the legislature should be sustained. It could be traced back to the majority ruling in the Charles River Bridge Case , which was discussed earlier. Field captured their position, and their distrust for the democratic process, in his dissent.
Of course Waite could not deny that a state might abuse its power. They had dreamed that the decision would establish an unequivocal right to be free of government regulation. More realistically, they hoped it would produce a doctrine that the reasonableness of government rates and regulations was inherently a judicial question and that courts would presume that rate regulation was an unconstitutional form of confiscation. Two years later delegates to the California constitutional convention pointed to Munn as proof that they had the authority to regulate railroad rates and fares.
Debates, , I And, even a decade later, a reform minded governor of Minnesota reminded the legislature that while the expediency of railroad regulation might be doubted, the right of the state to regulate was no longer in question. Cortner, , Editors of the Minneapolis Tribune were even more confident. This new doctrine would give much of what railroad and corporate leaders had wanted.
Under it all state regulation of rates would be suspected of being a confiscation of property that violated the Fourteenth Amendment.