Principles, personalities, or trade? Explaining Taft's 1911 prosecution of U.S. Steel.

The article focuses on the 1911 antitrust prosecution of U.S. Steel by the Taft Administration, arguing that this action was driven primarily by trade policy conflicts rather than legal principles or personal rivalry with Theodore Roosevelt. It challenges dominant explanations that Taft was either legally compelled to prosecute or motivated by political attacks on Roosevelt, showing instead that Taft shifted antitrust enforcement to align with protectionist Republicans after his efforts to liberalize trade failed, particularly following the rejection of a reciprocity agreement with Canada. This trade-based interpretation clarifies the timing and targets of the prosecutions—large export-dominant firms like U.S. Steel and International Harvester—and explains the resulting split within the Republican Party in 1912 as rooted in trade policy divisions rather than antitrust philosophy or personal animosities. The article concludes that the interplay between trade liberalization and antitrust enforcement shaped early twentieth-century politics and that Taft’s prosecution of U.S. Steel was a tactical move reflecting these economic and political pressures.