• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/4

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

4 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Describe the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act. Explain the motives behind their enactment and evaluate the success of each.

Thesis:The Interstate Commerce Act would supervise and regulate railroad activities and ensure fair rates while the Sherman Antitrust Act aimed more for Labor Unions and limiting the power of companies who had great power and control over trade which was a less successful act compared to the Interstate Commerce Act. The Interstate Commerce Act was more important and successful compared to the Sherman Antitrust Act because of many qualities. To begin with, the Interstate Commerce Act led to the ICC. ICC stands for Interstate Commerce Commision. The ICC was a commission that would supervise the railroad activities and ensure fair rates. Aside from this, this act was the government's first attempt in regulating business. It was the government's first attempt in regulating the monopolistic practices done by railroad corporations. The ICC was the first regulatory agency and this was also one of the reasons why the Interstate Commerce Act was more successful thaN the Sherman Antitrust Act since the ICA actually lead up to something. The Interstate Commerce Act was passed because since railroad corporations had little competition, they were becoming to monopolistic. The prices they had for transporting were insanely high and discriminatory towards smaller business. Therefore, the act was passed to regulate their prices and discrimination.

Compare and contrast the National Labor Union, Knights of Labor, and American Federation of Labor in regard to their origins, goals, and leadership. Account for the failure of the first two and for the success of the AFL.

National Labor UnionThe goal of the NLU was to organize workers across different trades and unite all the labor unionsThe NLU was led by William H. SylvisThis organization failed because it got the eight hour workday and employers cut wages leaving many workers unsatisfied.Knights of LaborThis organization sought for an economic and social reform. They also wanted codes for safety and health.This organization was led by Terence V. PowderlyThis organization failed because it included skilled and unskilled workers and when unskilled workers went on strike, they would just be replaced. They were also disorganized. They also lost supporters in the Haymarket Square incident. American Federation of Labor The AFL wanted better wages, hours, and working conditions. They used walkouts and boycottsThis federation was lead by Samuel Gompers.Unlike prior organizations, the AFL only accepted skilled workers and when they went on strike they weren't easily replaced causing the managers to bend and give them the changes they wanted.


Make a list of the combination of factors that produced the growth and industrialization of the American economy in the late nineteenth century. Then pick two factors that you think were especially important. Explain your choice.

Listtrain(railroads)unskilled labor(immigrants)steelgasoline engineelectricitycarsmanopolyentrepreneurism Thesis:There was a combination of factors that roduced growth and industrialization in the American economy in the late nineteenth century but the two factors that were especially important were steel production and railroads.

Business leaders of the late nineteenth century have been characterized both as greedy and unscrupulous “robber barons” and as great “captains of industry” whose entrepreneurial skill and tactics produced economic growth. Which view do you find more persuasive? Why?

Business leaders of the late nineteenth century have been characterized both as greedy and unscrupulous “robber barons” and as great “captains of industry” whose entrepreneurial skill and tactics produced economic growth. Which view do you find more persuasive? Why?