Posted in Money, Politics, and Power
Not even Teddy Roosevelt could break up his corrupt oil monopoly—until a daughter of the Pennsylvania oil fields came along.
by Whitney Curry Wimbish July 31, 2026 (Prospect.org)
This article appears in the August 2026 issue of The American Prospect magazine. If you’d like to receive our next issue in your mailbox, please subscribe here.
For a brief time during the Progressive Era, Ida M. Tarbell was the most famous woman in America. It was 1901 and the McClure’s Magazine journalist had recently published a much-loved, yearlong, 20-part series on Abraham Lincoln, for which she had traveled cross-country, uncovered new material, and put the publication solidly in the black at last. It was the first time since Samuel Sidney McClure launched his magazine in 1893 that it wasn’t struggling on the brink of bankruptcy. Tarbell’s Lincoln series doubled its circulation, and the newsroom could finally exhale, at least for a moment.
At 43 years old, Tarbell was living the life she wanted. She had a comfortable apartment in New York City, a career with purpose, no domestic responsibilities beyond her two cats, a wide circle of international friends, and colleagues who appreciated both her and her work.
More from Whitney Curry Wimbish
But ghosts of the Gilded Age were haunting America, and now that McClure’s had solid financial footing, it was racing to catch up. Competitors were already breaking news on corporate trusts, which outraged Americans exhausted and infuriated by the conditions that had plunged the country into extreme inequality.
As the senior staff writer and by all accounts McClure’s best friend, it was on Tarbell to undertake this next great investigation. One colleague suggested a story about the sugar monopoly. Another suggested Philip Danforth Armour, the meatpacking monopolist who used “everything but the squeal.” Those ideas were swiftly sidelined when oilmen in Spindletop, Texas, hit a gusher so powerful on January 10, 1901, that it is now credited as the genesis of the Texas oil boom, not to mention Exxon, Mobil, and Texaco. Spindletop shot a black geyser 200 feet into the air and produced 70,000 barrels daily; in just months, the tiny nearby town of Beaumont grew five and a half times, to 50,000 people who wanted to get rich off the black gold.
So the newsroom ditched squeal and sugar for oil, specifically the oil of John D. Rockefeller. His Standard Oil Company controlled the vast majority of the nation’s oil production, an undeniable monopoly. For Miss Tarbell, as her colleagues called her, the assignment made her queasy. After all, Rockefeller had ruined her father.
IDA MINERVA TARBELL WAS BORN on November 5, 1857, in Erie County, Pennsylvania, to Franklin Sumner Tarbell and Esther Ann McCullough Tarbell. The three lived in a log house full of “joyous interests,” delicious food, and a big fireplace. In 1860, the family moved 40 miles away to Titusville, where Franklin believed he was the one who could build the tank that could hold the hundreds of barrels of oil bubbling up from a new well.
The Tarbells lived in a shanty so grim that Ida, then a toddler, announced one day that she was going back to their old home, only to return an hour later, solemnly telling her mother that she did not know the way there. The episode must have instilled some sense of permission to investigate that carried into Ida’s career. “I was not to be punished; I was not to be laughed at; I was to be accepted,” she wrote. “My mother always let me carry out my revolts, return when I would and no questions asked.”
Tarbell was concerned with understanding not just how the world worked, but for whom.
The benefits of the oil boom were imperceptible to Ida as a child, she later wrote. But she recognized the horrors. On April 17, 1861, her father and his friends were excited to hear news that a man who had been drilling deeper than others had struck a new oil vein. As they ran toward the well, a massive explosion rocked the very earth. “A careless light had ignited the gas which had spread from the flowing oil until it had enveloped everything in the vicinity,” Tarbell wrote. Nineteen men burned to death. The horror did not end there that night. After dark, a man “burned and swollen beyond recognition” turned up at the shanty doorstep, and the family took him in and nursed him back to health. In another instance, a neighboring woman was hurrying to start a fire in her stove and poured oil on the wood, Tarbell recalled. The woman and two others who ran to her aid “were burned to a crisp.”
The tragedy was tangible, she wrote, not a mystery from beyond. “What a chain of catastrophes it took to teach the men and women who were developing the new industry the constant risk they ran in handling either crude or refined oil,” Tarbell wrote of the dead women. “I heard horrified whisperings about me. The refusal to tell me what had happened aroused a terrible curiosity. I gathered that the bodies were laid out in a house not far away and, when nobody was looking, stole in to look at them. Broken sleep for me for nights.” Tarbell suffered nightmares for the rest of her life.
Such events would have been enough to turn a person against the architects of the industry that caused them. But Big Oil had not finished with Tarbell’s education just yet. For three months in 1872, when Tarbell was a teenager, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company went on a spree of coerced corporate takeovers, buying out 22 of 26 rival refineries at bargain-basement prices in what later became known as the Cleveland Massacre. The independent companies sold because Rockefeller told them of a powerful alliance between bigger oil drillers and railroads. A few months before, Pennsylvania Railroad President Tom Scott had indeed formed a secret alliance called the South Improvement Company. The South Improvement partners wanted to stop competition between refiners so they could raise the cost of transporting the oil by freight. Under the secret agreement, the railroads would increase their prices beyond what operators like Tarbell’s father could pay and then give some of their proceeds to Rockefeller, a form of payment they termed a “rebate”—but “kickback” and “bribe” work, too. That was enough to scare the small-businessmen into selling their companies for cheap.
When the news leaked to newspapers across Pennsylvania’s oil region, oilmen like Tarbell’s father were incensed. They ran into the street, she wrote in her History of the Standard Oil Company. “Nobody waited to find out his neighbor’s opinion. On every lip there was but one word, and that was ‘conspiracy.’ For weeks the whole body of oil men abandoned regular business and surged from town to town intent on destroying the ‘Monster,’ the ‘Forty Thieves,’ the ‘great Anaconda,’ as they called the mysterious South Improvement Company.”
Rockefeller scoffed at talk of a conspiracy; it didn’t matter much to his monopolistic project, wrote biographer Ron Chernow in Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. Once he had the Cleveland refineries, “he then marched on and did the same thing in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York, and the other refining centers.”
Among those ruined was Tarbell’s father. “A big hand reached out from nobody knew where, to steal their conquest and throttle their future,” she wrote. It was akin to a “blow between the eyes.” She was 15.
THAT WAS THE BACKGROUND AGAINST which Tarbell considered her new assignment as a reporter at the height of her career. Yet she was no longer a teenager and had passed the recent decades with the same explorer’s spirit her mother had encouraged in Pennsylvania.
She wrote and thought from a worldly perspective. She was concerned with understanding not just how the world worked, but for whom. She had attended college, the only woman in her class, and originally sought a career as a scientist. She had flirted with men, and she flirted with at least one woman when she lived in Paris, where she supported herself as a writer and gathered an international set of friends, men and women alike. She produced a biography of Madame Marie-Jeanne Roland, a French revolutionary put to death by guillotine, and another of Napoleon Bonaparte. She had reshaped the nation’s view of Abraham Lincoln through her cross-country reporting, showing him as a “bright, rather handsome” striver, as one Chicago reader put it, not the unkempt, backwoods lowborn of conventional wisdom at the time.
With the goodwill and trust of her readers, Tarbell began to hunt Standard Oil just as President Theodore Roosevelt was, but with greater stealth and truer aim. In December 1901, almost a year after the Spindletop gusher blew, Roosevelt used his State of the Union address to tell lawmakers they must use their power to curb monopolies. They did not until well after McClure’s began publishing Tarbell’s exposés the following November.
Already, The Atlantic had published articles about Rockefeller’s monopoly in a series titled “Wealth Against Commonwealth.” Tarbell decided she would go deeper. She excavated the numerous legal cases the company had fielded since 1870, unearthing similarities and connections between all the disparate records of evidence and sworn testimony—a feat of research unassisted by digital tools—all illustrating rampant corruption, including that Rockefeller had colluded with the rail industry. She interviewed numerous sources in preparation for an interview with Rockefeller himself, and she began to encounter warning after warning, from other reporters and even her father, all of whom said Rockefeller would ruin her if she found out too much. Tarbell parried with Rockefeller’s corporate flack, Henry Huttleston Rogers, a man whose nickname was “Hell Hound,” who tried and failed to intimidate her, and so, finally, just froze her out of an interview with Rockefeller. She adjusted, using the same technique she’d used writing about Lincoln, reviewing documents, interviewing all the people around him, including Rockefeller’s estranged brother, Frank, a figure she found sad.
Yet she could not deny that Rockefeller had also put his considerable wealth toward public health, toward the University of Chicago, John Hopkins, Harvard, and what is now Spelman College, and funded a clinic for poor women and numerous other philanthropic ventures. She was committed to showing those facts, too, writing not just invective against the man who bankrupted her father but showing a human simultaneously capable of generosity and cruelty.
Chapter 17 of The History of the Standard Oil Company is titled “The Legitimate Greatness of the Standard Oil Company,” and notes that the privileges of securing a practical monopoly “alone will not account for its success. Something besides illegal advantages has gone into the making of the Standard Oil Trust,” and though it is now “blackened by commercial sin, has always been strong in all great business qualities—in energy, in intelligence, in dauntlessness. It has always been rich in youth as well as greed, in brains as well as unscrupulousness.” In our era of cynical both-sides journalism, Tarbell’s brand did not hold all things equal. Rather, she acknowledged that they existed. That was an ethic that marked her writing throughout her career: the desire to separate fact from fiction, real wisdom from conventional wisdom. She employed a distinctly different approach than the one of mainstream journalists today, who often attempt to act as ciphers through which events must pass on their way to the page (or website).
Tarbell finished her series in October 1904 and collected the articles into a book published the same year. By then, Standard Oil controlled all but 9 percent of the country’s oil production, but still it took another year for Roosevelt to order the Justice Department to investigate Rockefeller’s trust. In 1906, the department sued Standard for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, a law previously used to punish labor unions because courts ruled that strikes and boycotts hurt trade. Three years later, a federal circuit court agreed, and so did the Supreme Court in 1911. The decision forced Rockefeller to break Standard into 34 geographically separate companies that would compete with one another. None of that would have happened without Tarbell’s reporting, historians say, and it was her articles that historian Nancy C. Unger, professor emerita of history at Santa Clara University, says were responsible for the Hepburn Act of 1906, which expanded the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission; the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, which further strengthened the ICC; the creation of the Federal Trade Commission; and the Clayton Trust Act of 1914, the law that “really puts teeth” into the Antitrust Act, Unger told me.
Tarbell was at once objective and impassioned, as the following paragraph that Unger highlighted makes clear:
“No industry of man in its early days has ever been more destructive of beauty, order, decency, than the production of petroleum. All about us rose derricks, squatted engine-houses and tanks; the earth about them was streaked and damp with the dumpings of the pumps, which brought up regularly the sand and clay and rock through which the drill had made its way,” Tarbell wrote. “If oil was found, if the well flowed, every tree, every shrub, every bit of grass in the vicinity was coated with black grease and left to die. Tar and oil stained everything. If the well was dry a rickety derrick, piles of debris, oily holes were left, for nobody ever cleaned up in those days.”
“To have that kind of animus and still produce a balanced, compelling, evidence-based indictment, I think that’s hard to do,” Unger said. “It’s hard not to let your anger and resentment color things and run away with it, and she did a really admirable job of saying, ‘I have to go and see where the evidence takes me.’”
For biographer Kathleen Brady, author of Ida Tarbell: Portrait of a Muckraker, the details that stood out to her while researching the godmother of modern investigation were the ones that showed Tarbell to be a woman making her way in an inhospitable world, at times traveling alone and outside of the sphere of acceptable womanly activity. Brady’s research showed that Tarbell expected she would prove that John D. Rockefeller was simply a better businessman than most of the people that she knew, including her beloved father, Brady told me. “But there was more to the story, and we live in a completely different world now because the Supreme Court in 1911 broke up Standard Oil.”
Before you go.
I hope that you found this article interesting and thought-provoking. The reason we’re able to publish stories like this — free of programmatic ads and never behind a paywall — is because readers like you step up to support our work.
The Prospect doesn’t answer to advertisers or billionaire owners. We answer to you and to our commitment to pursuing the truth, wherever that leads us.
Independent, reader-supported journalism is critical at a time when the free press is under assault.
If you believe this kind of reporting should exist and remain free to read, we hope you’ll consider chipping in. Every contribution, however modest, makes a real difference.
David Dayen
Executive Editor
This article appears in Aug 2026 issue.
Whitney Curry Wimbish
Whitney Curry Wimbish is a staff writer at The American Prospect. She previously worked in the Financial Times newsletters division, The Cambodia Daily in Phnom Penh, and the Herald News in New Jersey. Her work has been published in multiple outlets, including The New York Times, The Baffler, Los Angeles Review of Books, Music & Literature, North American Review, Sentient, Semafor, and elsewhere. She is a coauthor of The Majority Report’s daily newsletter and publishes short fiction in a range of literary magazines. She can be reached on Signal at wwimbish.07. More by Whitney Curry Wimbish
