Later in spring there are sunset concerts near the bay by the Baldwin Pops, while fall brings the Fairhope Film Festival, including outdoor screenings in an amphitheater downtown. The bar and event space hosts eclectic audiences for readings and performances several evenings each week, and regulars fill the on-site coffee shop. They were very concerned about our store; they wanted to meet with me and ask how they could help.
The Fairhope Single Tax Corporation maintains a charming old-world office on Fairhope Avenue, but today it owns only about 20 percent of the land in Fairhope.
Those who live on that 20 percent technically lease the land and pay a single tax to the FSTC that includes their property taxes and a small fee. The other 80 percent of homeowners own the land beneath their homes. All are free to buy and sell as they please. Historic homes along the waterfront can get multimillion-dollar prices. Just south of Fairhope is the Grand Hotel, a sweeping year-old property set on a acre expanse that includes two golf courses and a spa. A huge mural of an oak tree sprouting hops instead of leaves covers the outside of the adjacent bottling building the artist, Sarah Rutledge Fischer, is the wife of one of the brewers.
The latter serves up old-style chocolate glazed doughnuts, and more new-school breakfast biscuits stuffed with fried eggs, small-batch bacon and spicy mayo.
Follow the Author
Every afternoon, I would walk across the street from my house and out onto the pier. I would sit there and watch the sun go down. The church was right behind me. The bells would ring and it would just be so peaceful right there in that spot. It kept me sane. Get weekly updates from our Travel Dispatch newsletter, with tips on traveling smarter, destination coverage and photos from all over the world. Fairhope Center for the Writing Arts. Public Library. Refuge Coffee.
She received the Nobel Peace Prize in It would be suffrage, ultimately, that would mark the full emergence of women in American public life. Notable victories were won in the West, where suffragists mobilized large numbers of women and male politicians were open to experimental forms of governance. By , six western states had passed suffrage amendments to their constitutions. Women protested silently in front of the White House for over two years before the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. WTUL members viewed the vote as a way to further their economic interests and to foster a new sense of respect for working-class women.
Many suffragists adopted a much crueler message. Many white American women argued that enfranchising white upper- and middle-class women would counteract black voters. These arguments even stretched into international politics. But whether the message advocated gender equality, class politics, or white supremacy, the suffrage campaign was winning. Determined to win the vote, the National American Woman Suffrage Association developed a dual strategy that focused on the passage of state voting rights laws and on the ratification of an amendment to the U.
Meanwhile, a new, more militant, suffrage organization emerged on the scene. After the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, women from all walks of life mobilized to vote. They were driven by the promise of change but also in some cases by their anxieties about the future. Much had changed since their campaign began; the United States was now more industrial than not, increasingly more urban than rural. The activism and activities of these new urban denizens also gave rise to a new American culture. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a trust was a monopoly or cartel associated with the large corporations of the Gilded and Progressive Eras who entered into agreements—legal or otherwise—or consolidations to exercise exclusive control over a specific product or industry under the control of a single entity.sapactohy.tk
Capitol, and one tentacle reaching for the White House. The only building not yet within reach of the octopus is the White House—President Teddy Roosevelt had won a reputation as a trust buster. The rapid industrialization, technological advancement, and urban growth of the s and s triggered major changes in the way businesses structured themselves. Steel and John D.
Each displayed the vertical and horizontal integration strategies common to the new trusts: Carnegie first used vertical integration by controlling every phase of business raw materials, transportation, manufacturing, distribution , and Rockefeller adhered to horizontal integration by buying out competing refineries.
Once dominant in a market, critics alleged, the trusts could artificially inflate prices, bully rivals, and bribe politicians. Between and , over four thousand companies were consolidated down into corporate firms. Mergers and the aggressive business policies of wealthy men such as Carnegie and Rockefeller earned them the epithet robber barons. Their cutthroat stifling of economic competition, mistreatment of workers, and corruption of politics sparked an opposition that pushed for regulations to rein in the power of monopolies.
The great corporations became a major target of reformers.
yttosjabangra.cf: alabama to
Big business, whether in meatpacking, railroads, telegraph lines, oil, or steel, posed new problems for the American legal system. Before the Civil War, most businesses operated in a single state. They might ship goods across state lines or to other countries, but they typically had offices and factories in just one state. Individual states naturally regulated industry and commerce. But extensive railroad routes crossed several state lines and new mass-producing corporations operated across the nation, raising questions about where the authority to regulate such practices rested.
During the s, many states passed laws to check the growing power of vast new corporations. In the Midwest, farmers formed a network of organizations that were part political pressure group, part social club, and part mutual aid society. Together they pushed for so-called Granger laws that regulated railroads and other new companies. In , the U. Supreme Court upheld these laws in a series of rulings, finding in cases such as Munn v.
Illinois and Stone v. Wisconsin that railroads and other companies of such size necessarily affected the public interest and could thus be regulated by individual states. When, therefore, one devoted his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.
Later rulings, however, conceded that only the federal government could constitutionally regulate interstate commerce and the new national businesses operating it. And as more and more power and capital and market share flowed to the great corporations, the onus of regulation passed to the federal government. In , Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act, which established the Interstate Commerce Commission to stop discriminatory and predatory pricing practices.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of aimed to limit anticompetitive practices, such as those institutionalized in cartels and monopolistic corporations. Only in , with the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, did Congress attempt to close loopholes in previous legislation. Instead, he envisioned his presidency as a mediator between opposing forces, such as between labor unions and corporate executives.
Despite his own wealthy background, Roosevelt pushed for antitrust legislation and regulations, arguing that the courts could not be relied on to break up the trusts. Roosevelt also used his own moral judgment to determine which monopolies he would pursue. Roosevelt believed that there were good and bad trusts, necessary monopolies and corrupt ones.
Although his reputation as a trust buster was wildly exaggerated, he was the first major national politician to go after the trusts. Morgan, used to hold controlling shares in all the major railroad companies in the American Northwest. Holding trusts had emerged as a way to circumvent the Sherman Anti-Trust Act: by controlling the majority of shares, rather than the principal, Morgan and his collaborators tried to claim that it was not a monopoly.
Two years later, in , Roosevelt signed the Hepburn Act, allowing the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate best practices and set reasonable rates for the railroads. Roosevelt was more interested in regulating corporations than breaking them apart. Besides, the courts were slow and unpredictable. Taft notably went after U. Trust busting and the handling of monopolies dominated the election of Whereas Taft took an all-encompassing view on the illegality of monopolies, Roosevelt adopted a New Nationalism program, which once again emphasized the regulation of already existing corporations or the expansion of federal power over the economy.
In contrast, Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Party nominee, emphasized in his New Freedom agenda neither trust busting nor federal regulation but rather small-business incentives so that individual companies could increase their competitive chances. Congress further created the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the Clayton Act, ensuring at least some measure of implementation. While the three presidents—Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson—pushed the development and enforcement of antitrust law, their commitments were uneven, and trust busting itself manifested the political pressure put on politicians by the workers, farmers, and progressive writers who so strongly drew attention to the ramifications of trusts and corporate capital on the lives of everyday Americans.
The potential scope of environmental destruction wrought by industrial capitalism was unparalleled in human history. As American development and industrialization marched westward, reformers embraced environmental protections. Historians often cite preservation and conservation as two competing strategies that dueled for supremacy among environmental reformers during the Progressive Era. The tensions between these two approaches crystalized in the debate over a proposed dam in the Hetch Hetchy Valley in California.
The fight revolved around the provision of water for San Francisco. Engineers identified the location where the Tuolumne River ran through Hetch Hetchy as an ideal site for a reservoir.