The late 19th century and early 20th century was the age of big businesses. It bore a class of entrepreneurs known as robber barons. These entrepreneurs carry a perception in the eyes of most historical commentators that they committed veiled larceny acts to enrich themselves to the detriment of the customers, often seeking the aid of politicians to support their crony capitalist endeavors. Such portrayal by the historians lives us with the picture of greedy and exploitative capitalists. However, there are cases where this ‘robber baron’ string of entrepreneurs did indeed exploit their customers financial gain. Jay Cooke, famously known as the ‘financier of the Civil War’, was an example of this string of entrepreneurs and their reaches within the United States government.
The Lincoln government underestimated both the duration and cost of the war, resulting in the Treasury facing bankruptcy. There was a “collapse of government credit” and an increased need for government funds, creating an opportunity for Cooke to inject himself into the government financing scheme. Cooke knew politicians, particularly the Governor of Ohio, Salmon P. Chase,
…show more content…
Jay Cooke & Company’s first endeavor was the selling of bonds to cover the loan sought by the Pennsylvania State Legislature to fund its war efforts, and Cooke was able to sell these bonds “at not less than par” (Josephson). Cooke’s tactic involved playing into the patriotic sentiments in the North by claiming that the Union efforts would be “[suppressing] treason and rebellion” (Josephson). Cooke’s success in financing Pennsylvania’s loan led him to seek an alliance between his banking house and the United States Treasury. Chases initially rejected this, as this would create a monopoly in the government bond market. Cooke’s success eventually made it impossible for Chase to deny his friend the role as a fiscal
Morgan was one of the more selfish of the barons. He once said, “I owe nothing to the public, and often practiced fraud and distortion. His methods of monopolizing the banking industry were so obvious, that they were in fact called, “Morganization.” He once sold 5,000 defective rifles to General Fremont, and was never even filed suit against. Morgan still has an impact today since many companies produce faulty products or perform inadequate services that can sometimes even result in injury or even death, and are often written off as “human error” or bundles of cash pushed towards the victims to keep them
The term “robber barons” originated from the turn of the twentieth century during the Gilded Age. The name “Gilded Age” was derived from Mark Twain’s novel, The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today, in which he portrayed American society as “gilded”, meaning that despite how fancy and luxurious it might have seemed on the surface, underneath the gild was actually a plethora of grave social issues that society refused to acknowledge. The title “robber baron” was a derogatory nickname meant to criticize the morals of businessmen who used immoral methods to gain immense wealth. It first appeared in The New York Times as early as February 9, 1859, where authors criticized the infamous business man Cornelius Vanderbilt for his unethical manner of achieving
A major question historians have disagreed on has been whether or not John D. Rockefeller was a so-called "robber baron". Matthew Josephson agreed that Rockefeller was indeed a "robber baron". In the book Taking Sides, He claims that Rockefeller was a deceptive and conspiratorial businessman, whose fortune was built by secret agreements and wrung concessions from America's leading railroad companies (Taking Sides 25).
During the Gilded Age, several Americans emerged as leaders in many fields such as, railroads, oil drilling, manufacturing and banking. The characterization of these leaders as “robber barons” is, unfortunately, nearly always correct in every instance of business management at this time. Most, if not all, of these leaders had little regard for the public or laborers at all and advocated for the concentration of wealth within tight-knit groups of wealthy business owners.
In the beginning of the 1830s, the United States experienced a short period of expansion and a prosperous economy. Land sales, new taxes, such as the Tariff of 1833, and the newly constructed railroads brought a lot of money into the government’s possession; never before in the history of the country had the government experienced a surplus in its national bank. By 1835, the government was able to accumulate enough money to pay off its national debt. Much of the country was happy with this newly accumulated wealth, but President Jackson, before leaving office in 1836, issued what is called a Specie Circular. Many local and state governments liked to save specie, or gold and silver, and use paper money to take care of transactions. President Jackson, in his Specie Circular, said that the Treasury was no longer allowed to accept paper money as payment for the sales of land and the like. Most, if not all, of the country did not like this, and as a result many banks restricted credit and discontinued the loans. The effects of Jackson’s Specie Circular took effect in 1837, when Martin van Buren became president. All investors became scared, and in 1837, attempted to withdraw all of their money at once. Soon after this, unemployment and riots occurred in many cities, and the continued expansion of the railroad ceased to be.
When the names Carnagie, Rockefeller, and Pullman come to mind, most of us automatically think of what we saw or read in our history books: "These men were kind and generous and through hard work and perseverance, any one of you could become a success story like them," right? Wrong. I am sick of these people being remembered for the two or three "good deeds" they have done. Publicity and media have exaggerated the generosity of these men, the government has spoiled these names with false lies, and people have been blind to see that these men were ruthless, sly businessmen who were motivated by your money and their struggle for power.
During his term as secretary of the treasury, he acted with the power and commanding force of a Prime Minister. None of the other founding fathers contributed as much to the economy’s growth, and the shape of the country in general, as he did. Alexander Hamilton was the most influential of the United States’ early politicians in the development of the country’s economy. One of the earliest examples of Hamilton’s power was his role in the national assumption of state debts. After the Revolutionary War, individual states had varying amounts of debt.
He believed the bank and those who controlled it had too much power and could ruin the country financially for their own gains. In 1833, Jackson fired his Treasury Secretary for refusing to remove deposits from the Second Bank and became the only President censured by the Senate for his actions, although the censure was expunged at the end of his second term. In January 1835, Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished. However, in 1837, depression ensued and the national debt rose
He explained to the Senate that the income for exported goods (1857) was about $279,000,000. Of that amount he calculated that about $158,000,000 of that amount came from southern goods such as cotton and rice. He ends his speech with “No power on earth dares to make war on cotton. Cotton is King.” The economies of the north and south pushed the nation into separation. It made the south believe that they didn’t need the north to make money and to live, but the north needed the south they needed the income. I can assure you that cash money was a huge part of causing the Civil
Roark, James L. et al., eds. The American Promise: A Compact, Vol. I: To 1877. 3rd edition. Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007.
In the 1939 film, Mr.Smith Goes to Washington, the filmmaker gives a distinct contrast between the idealized and assumed morality of American patriotism and the reality of the corruption that can be found within the political machines of the government. As seen in this film, the human desire for money and power is often a drive that individuals within the government cannot help but clasp onto. For example, Clarissa Saunders proclaims that she is only in her job for “money and a new suit of clothes,” Joseph Paine elects Smith as a way to remain in control of the Senate and to remain connected to the power source of Jim Taylor, and the political machine Jim Taylor attempts to influence Senate to push a bill through that will continue to increase the power of his own monopoly. However, when Jefferson
During the 1800’s, business leaders who built their affluence by stealing and bribing public officials to propose laws in their favor were known as “robber barons”. J.P. Morgan, a banker, financed the restructuring of railroads, insurance companies, and banks. In addition, Andrew Carnegie, the steel king, disliked monopolistic trusts. Nonetheless, ruthlessly destroying the businesses and lives of many people merely for personal profit; Carnegie attained a level of dominance and wealth never before seen in American history, but was only able to obtain this through acts that were dishonest and oftentimes, illicit.
In The Dinner, the+ men compromise on Hamilton’s Assumption Plan. When an exhausted and unkempt Hamilton tells Jefferson that he wishes to resign from Secretary of Treasury because his financial plan “was trapped in a congressional gridlock” because of James Madison’s strong disapproval of it, Jefferson agreed to help him. The recovery of Public Credit assumed that the “federal government would take on all the accumulated debts of the states” . However, Madison disapproved of this plan because he worried that Hamilton valued speculators over the common man who had fought in the Revolution. Also, many states had already paid off their wartime debts, so the Assumption Bill would do them an injustice by “compelling them, after having done their duty, to contribute to those states who have not equally done their duty” . Later on Jefferson invited Hamilton and Madison over to dinner, their discussion lead to a
The validity of President Andrew Jackson’s response to the Bank War issue has been contradicted by many, but his reasoning was supported by fact and inevitably beneficial to the country. Jackson’s primary involvement with the Second Bank of the United States arose during the suggested governmental re-chartering of the institution. It was during this period that the necessity and value of the Bank’s services were questioned.
Mooney, Richard. "Banker of America." The Boston Globe 4 Apr. 1999: L1 "Powerful house of Morgan Changes with the Times." The San Diego Union-Tribune 24 Feb. 1986: 18 Sinclair, Andrew. Corsair: The Life of J. Pierpont Morgan. Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1981.