WI: The Founding Fathers Banned Corporations?

It is little remembered today that while the Founding Fathers were generally big fans of private enterprise, they were not fond of corporations. Their primary experience with corporations had been the East India Company, which played a major role in the colonist's discontents over British rule. By the time of the Constitutional convention in 1787, there were only six in the country other than banks.

Thomas Jefferson was on record (albeit later in life) as hoping to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations." James Madison wanted the federal government to take on effective control of corporations "in cases where the public good may require them and the authority of a single state may be incompetent." In the end, his plans were defeated, and the chartering remained up to states. Originally under heavy regulations (corporations originally were chartered for one thing, could not buy one another, and could only make limited profit), loopholes developed within the next hundred years which allowed out of state incorporation, and finally corporate personhood.

But let's say the founding fathers decided to strangle incorporation in its cradle in the U.S., either officially banning incorporation, or putting severe enough strictures within the constitution that new amendments would be needed to have what is recognized as a modern-day business. What would the results be - for the U.S. and the development of worldwide global capitalism?
 
Last edited:
This would restrict and direct the growth of capitalism in the US, but hardly weaken or end it. Basically it'd put reins on capitalism rather than cripple it.

The Gospel of Wealth has far fewer followers in the US, if it ever develops here at all. The labor movement has an easier time in general. Perhaps a sense of noblesse oblige develops among America's wealthy elites. You might see the continuance of elites like the Southern planters who have pretensions of being like European nobility, rather than corporate elites. Capitalism might be less strong overall in the US, enough so that the American rise as an economic rival to European powers is slowed by as much as a generation. And in more recent times you might have seen badly needed reforms like publicly funded political campaigns passed long ago.
 
It is little remembered today that while the Founding Fathers were generally big fans of private enterprise, they were not fond of corporations. Their primary experience with corporations had been the East India Company, which played a major role in the colonist's discontents over British rule. By the time of the Constitutional convention in 1797, there were only six in the country other than banks.

Thomas Jefferson was on record (albeit later in life) as hoping to "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations." James Madison wanted the federal government to take on effective control of corporations "n cases where the public good may require them and the authority of a single state may be incompetent." In the end, his plans were defeated, and the chartering remained up to states. Originally under heavy regulations (corporations originally were chartered for one thing, could not buy one another, and could only make limited profit), loopholes developed within the next hundred years which allowed out of state incorporation, and finally corporate personhood.

But let's say the founding fathers decided to strangle incorporation in its cradle in the U.S., either officially banning incorporation, or putting severe enough strictures within the constitution that new amendments would be needed to have what is recognized as a modern-day business. What would the results be - for the U.S. and the development of worldwide global capitalism?

Whats the POD that has the Constitutional Convention moved 10 years later than it occured OTL? In 1797 OTL Adams was starting his Term as President.:D
 
It wouldn't make any sense for such a blanket ban to be in the Constitution. It's just not that kind of document, and pre-19th Century Corporations simply aren't such a concern to anyone to merit direct mention in the same document that didn't even mention the number of Justices. Any controls on corps will be legislative, and thus subject to all the standard evolution that implies.
 
Indeed, if you want to split the needle with a little ASB you could create a constitutional definition of a corporation. That is, remove the ability of the SCOTUS to create the doctrine of Corporate Personhood without necessarily a ban.
 
Top