Abstract
Abstract In 1911, the Taft Administration undertook one of the most consequential antitrust prosecutions, charging U.S. Steel with violating the Sherman Act. Some accept Taft’s claim that he was bound to act by legal principles. Others view these prosecutions as a pre-emptive attack on Theodore Roosevelt, sparked by rivalries within the Republican Party. Neither account is persuasive. The Republicans did split, but the resulting cleavage does not align with either of these arguments. These prosecutions sprang from a struggle over trade policy. Taft tried to liberalize trade twice. With his second failure, Taft abandoned those efforts. He joined the protectionist Stand-Pat wing, turning to antitrust policy to defend the protectionists’ interests. The trade-based interpretation resolves several inconsistencies in the traditional narratives, and yields a clearer description of the resulting cleavage. Taft shifted antitrust policy for tactical reasons, not because of legal principles, nor a personal rivalry with Roosevelt.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
