History of corporations in the US

Votto

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2012
55,162
54,838
3,605
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.


In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court’s decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court’s attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the (Dartmouth College v Woodward) ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people’s message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state’s powers over “artificial bodies.”
But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation’s resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises.


The industrial age forced a nation of farmers to become wage earners, and they became fearful of unemployment–a new fear that corporations quickly learned to exploit. Company towns arose. and blacklists of labor organizers and workers who spoke up for their rights became common. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. They bought newspapers to paint businessmen as heroes and shape public opinion. Corporations bought state legislators, then announced legislators were corrupt and said that they used too much of the public’s resources to scrutinize every charter application and corporate operation.
Government spending during the Civil War brought these corporations fantastic wealth. Corporate executives paid “borers” to infest Congress and state capitals, bribing elected and appointed officials alike. They pried loose an avalanche of government financial largesse. During this time, legislators were persuaded to give corporations limited liability, decreased citizen authority over them, and extended durations of charters.
Attempts were made to keep strong charter laws in place, but with the courts applying legal doctrines that made protection of corporations and corporate property the center of constitutional law, citizen sovereignty was undermined. As corporations grew stronger, government and the courts became easier prey. They freely reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and transformed common law doctrines.
One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s recommended book Unequal Protection.
From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.
A United States Congressional committee concluded in 1941, “The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….”
 
Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


To better understand what support an establishment with a Congressional approval rating of only 10% amongst voters, but continue to retain power election after election, and who prop up two terms for idiots like "W" and Obama, it would behoove you to understand more about corporate America, without whom, it would all be impossible.
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
The Obama defender! LMFAO! He just espoused every principle liberals stand for and your first comment is , "But not Obama..." Ha,ha,ha,
 
It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
That's because your dishonest statement is bullshit.
The tea party concept references the Boston tea party. That wasn't the 1800's.
It was a rail against government overreach and excessive taxation. Monopolies are a different problem altogether.
 
It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
That's because your dishonest statement is bullshit.
The tea party concept references the Boston tea party. That wasn't the 1800's.

My statement was completely correct. Yours is dishonest. The Tea Party's name is in reference to the Boston Tea Party, but their ideology is not. This becomes especially obvious when you consider that the Boston Tea Party took place well before the establishment of an independent United States. Or do you sincerely believe that today's Tea Party groups are out to cause chaos for the economic and administrative functions of the British government?

It was a rail against government overreach and excessive taxation. Monopolies are a different problem altogether.

Bullshit, prove it.
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."

It all went to hell as soon as state rights went down the tubes.

Now we are led by an all powerful federal government that has been bought many times over, and a Congress with only a 10% approval rating. Funny thing is, they all keep getting elected.

Parties simply give the illusion someone is on your side. Collectivism destroys our freedom and democracy and both parties are complicit.

Incidentally, how do you splain how Obozo was sent a ton of money from corporations like GE, who some how manage to get out of paying taxes?
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."

It all went to hell as soon as state rights went down the tubes.

Now we are led by an all powerful federal government that has been bought many times over, and a Congress with only a 10% approval rating. Funny thing is, they all keep getting elected.

Parties simply give the illusion someone is on your side. Collectivism destroys our freedom and democracy.
Doesn't make much sense...
Corporations pay government to do exactly what you want...Stay out of the way.
So what's the problem?
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."


You think Obama is anti big business? BAHAHAHAHAHA
Top Contributors to Barack Obama OpenSecrets
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."

It all went to hell as soon as state rights went down the tubes.

Now we are led by an all powerful federal government that has been bought many times over, and a Congress with only a 10% approval rating. Funny thing is, they all keep getting elected.

Parties simply give the illusion someone is on your side. Collectivism destroys our freedom and democracy.
Doesn't make much sense...
Corporations pay government to do exactly what you want...Stay out of the way.
So what's the problem?

Corporations pay government to do what I want?

Wut? If corporations did not pay them money, their incentive would be to do what I want in order to get elected.

As I said, Congress has only had a 10% approval rating for decades, yet they keep getting elected anyway.

I rather enjoy seeing politicians go down in flames who outspend their rivals by millions of dollars. Granted, this rarely happens, but it brings a smile to my face when it does like when Eric Cantor went down in flames.

What I can't figure out is how folks like Mitch McConnel and John Boehner surrender about 40% of the vote, even though they win in the primaries. Their opponents spend next to nothing as they spend millions.
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."


You think Obama is anti big business? BAHAHAHAHAHA
Top Contributors to Barack Obama OpenSecrets

Folks like Hillary are just flat broke, don't ya know.
 
Folks should get behind the Article V movement. Article V of the Constitution provides states with the option of amending the Constitution, devoid of federal government involvement.

States need to begin to take back their power. Amendments should include such things as term limits and a balanced amendment of some type. This is because Congress has become intractable, even though they are hated. Also, states must do the bidding of the federal government or face getting sued or having federal dollars withheld from them. These types of coercive measures must stop, and the only way to do it is to reign in the money that empower them.
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."


You think Obama is anti big business? BAHAHAHAHAHA
Top Contributors to Barack Obama OpenSecrets

Individual contributors to President Obama's campaign do nothing to besmirch his pristine record as a hero of the pyyple and status as America's only honest president ever.
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."


You think Obama is anti big business? BAHAHAHAHAHA
Top Contributors to Barack Obama OpenSecrets

Individual contributors to President Obama's campaign do nothing to besmirch his pristine record as a hero of the pyyple and status as America's only honest president ever.

Only honest president ever?

Are you really a right winger goofing on me? Be honest.
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."

It all went to hell as soon as state rights went down the tubes.

Now we are led by an all powerful federal government that has been bought many times over, and a Congress with only a 10% approval rating. Funny thing is, they all keep getting elected.

Parties simply give the illusion someone is on your side. Collectivism destroys our freedom and democracy.
Doesn't make much sense...
Corporations pay government to do exactly what you want...Stay out of the way.
So what's the problem?

Corporations pay government to do what I want?

Wut? If corporations did not pay them money, their incentive would be to do what I want in order to get elected.

As I said, Congress has only had a 10% approval rating for decades, yet they keep getting elected anyway.

I rather enjoy seeing politicians go down in flames who outspend their rivals by millions of dollars. Granted, this rarely happens, but it brings a smile to my face when it does like when Eric Cantor went down in flames.

What I can't figure out is how folks like Mitch McConnel and John Boehner surrender about 40% of the vote, even though they win in the primaries. Their opponents spend next to nothing as they spend millions.
I still don't get your complaint.
You ARE a Free Market Conservative, are you not?
I thought Free Market Conservatives loved Off-Shoring, Business Visas and illegal construction workers, landscapers, cleaning ladies, etc...
 
While I disapprove of your needless attack on President Obama, who has been working against mega-corporations and for the good of the American pyyple at large, I did enjoy both of your posts. It's rare that pyyple recognize that, except for the slavery and racism part, the U.S. spent much of the 19th Century as a socialist utopia where government control over the economy was not just common but was the rule, and where most "private lands" were actually only acquired via public grant by the government, in its extreme benevolence.

It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."

It all went to hell as soon as state rights went down the tubes.

Now we are led by an all powerful federal government that has been bought many times over, and a Congress with only a 10% approval rating. Funny thing is, they all keep getting elected.

Parties simply give the illusion someone is on your side. Collectivism destroys our freedom and democracy.
Doesn't make much sense...
Corporations pay government to do exactly what you want...Stay out of the way.
So what's the problem?

Corporations pay government to do what I want?

Wut? If corporations did not pay them money, their incentive would be to do what I want in order to get elected.

As I said, Congress has only had a 10% approval rating for decades, yet they keep getting elected anyway.

I rather enjoy seeing politicians go down in flames who outspend their rivals by millions of dollars. Granted, this rarely happens, but it brings a smile to my face when it does like when Eric Cantor went down in flames.

What I can't figure out is how folks like Mitch McConnel and John Boehner surrender about 40% of the vote, even though they win in the primaries. Their opponents spend next to nothing as they spend millions.
I still don't get your complaint.
You ARE a Free Market Conservative, are you not?
I thought Free Market Conservatives loved Off-Shoring, Business Visas and illegal construction workers, landscapers, cleaning ladies, etc...

Corporations are nothing more than mini governments.

My main beef is with collectivism. Collectivism is tyranny, pure and simple.

Have you ever heard of a corporation named "serco"? No? That is probably by design.

 
Folks should get behind the Article V movement. Article V of the Constitution provides states with the option of amending the Constitution, devoid of federal government involvement.

States need to begin to take back their power. Amendments should include such things as term limits and a balanced amendment of some type. This is because Congress has become intractable, even though they are hated. Also, states must do the bidding of the federal government or face getting sued or having federal dollars withheld from them. These types of coercive measures must stop, and the only way to do it is to reign in the money that empower them.

You're sort of wrong about Congress being hated. People hate Congress, except for THEIR Congress critter. For some reason every freaking election we hear "vote the bums out" then everyone goes out and reelects their bum.
 
Folks should get behind the Article V movement. Article V of the Constitution provides states with the option of amending the Constitution, devoid of federal government involvement.

States need to begin to take back their power. Amendments should include such things as term limits and a balanced amendment of some type. This is because Congress has become intractable, even though they are hated. Also, states must do the bidding of the federal government or face getting sued or having federal dollars withheld from them. These types of coercive measures must stop, and the only way to do it is to reign in the money that empower them.

You're sort of wrong about Congress being hated. People hate Congress, except for THEIR Congress critter. For some reason every freaking election we hear "vote the bums out" then everyone goes out and reelects their bum.

Here is the deal, Congress should not have the power of the purse like they do. It was given to them by Progressives at the turn of the 20th century. Then they created the Fed to print money that they did not obtain with the federal income tax.

Ever since then, the federal government has eroded the power of the states. They have created a fourth branch of government in the Executive Branch where armies of unelected bureaucrats impose regulations upon us that amount to laws. Now the federal government decides everything from how our children are educated to what kind of light bulb we use and what doctor we can or cannot see.

This sort of power was never meant to be, which is why I was not given the power to vote for EVERYONE in Congress. The more powerful goof balls like Nancy Pelosi becomes, the more magnified my lack of representation becomes.

And that is my point here. Collectivism brings tyranny. My vote counts more for my state representative than it does voting for president, simply because there are not as many people voting. In addition, the more local my representatives are, the more in tune they are with my needs and more accessible they are to my input.

What we have now is a system of trying to elect the most benevolent dictator who ignores laws, even the laws he shoves down our throats such as Obamacare.

Incidentally, Obamacare gave corporate America the right to set our tax rates.
 
It confounds me to no end how Teabaggers can claim to have studied history and be Constitutional scholars while at the same time extolling the virtues of "old America" and demanding that we "return to our roots" as a "free market capitalist country just like in the 1800's."
That's because your dishonest statement is bullshit.
The tea party concept references the Boston tea party. That wasn't the 1800's.
It was a rail against government overreach and excessive taxation. Monopolies are a different problem altogether.

This is one of my favorite things. When a tea partier has no clue regarding what the Boston Tea Party was all about. It brings joy to my heart. The innocence of ignorance.............
 

Forum List

Back
Top