State competition for business prevented progressive labor legislation before federal control

Evidence

New York’s hard divorce laws remained on the books, but the divorce mills made a mockery of these laws, especially (in the twentieth century) that great divorce mill in the desert, Nevada. Legislators in the North and Middle West hesitated to pass progressive labor laws, or outlaw child labor, because states in the South angled for businesses with low wages, and laws unfriendly to labor. No one state could control big national companies; the national railroad nets laughed at the efforts of little Rhode Island or Connecticut. The only solutions were voluntary moves toward uniformity—​or strong federal control. The first had no real muscle behind it. The second was the ultimate solution—​or partial solution. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2376

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: American regulation moved historically from local to state to federal control — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2547; Interstate commerce created pressure for uniform commercial laws — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 460

Broader Connections

• American regulation moved historically from local to state to federal control #corroborates (0.82) — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2547
• Interstate commerce created pressure for uniform commercial laws #complicates (0.78) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 460