Industrial development of the late 18th century (around 1865-1900) is often characterized by it’s affluent, aggressive and monopolistic industrial leaders of the likes of men such as Andrew Carnegie, William H. Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller. Due to their ruthless strategies, utilization of trusts, and exploitation of cheap labor in order to garner nearly unbreakable monopolies and massive sums of wealth, these men are often labelled as “robber barons”. At the same time, they are also often referred to as “industrial statements” for their organization, and catalyst of, industrial development; not to forget their generous contributions to the betterment of American society. Therefore, whether or not their aforementioned advances in industry were undertaken for their own personal benefits, one cannot ignore their positive effects on America. Thus, one can conclude that not only were the captains of industry both “robber barons” and “industrial statements”, but that that these two labels, in fact, go hand-in-hand. As mentioned, it is accurate to allot the title of “robber baron” to the industrial leaders of the time in that they employed various, considerably unethical, methods in order to obtain untold riches. Such a notion is quite evident in William H. Vanderbilt’s own words, that, “[t]he railroads are not run for the benefit of the ‘dear public’-that cry is all nonsense they are built by men who invest their money”. (Document A) Vanderbilt even goes so far as to say something such as, “[t]he public be damned”, so to demonstrate he does not care for the opinion and state of the public, but rather only of his own and of his fellow financiers. Such statements prove that Vanderbilt sought to further his wealth, whether or not ... ... middle of paper ... ...interpretations of their assumption of millions of dollars. Due to their appropriation of godlike fortunes, and numerous contributions to American society, they simultaneously displayed qualities of both aforementioned labels. Therefore, whether it be Vanderbilt’s greed, Rockefeller’s philanthropy, or Carnegie’s social Darwinist world view, such men were, quite unarguably, concurrently forces of immense good and evil: building up the modern American economy, through monopolistic trusts and exploitative measures, all the while developing unprecedented affluence. Simply, the captains of late 19th century industry were neither wholly “robber barons” or “industrial statesmen”, but rather both, as they proved to be indifferent to their “lesser man” in their quests for profit, while also helping to organize industry and ultimately, greatly improve modern American society.
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.
Robber Barons are known as ruthless capitalist or industrialist of the late 19th century, known to have gain wealthyness by exploiting natural resources, corrupting legislators, or other unethical means. The Myth of the Robber Barons is a book about the entrepreneurs Cornelius Vanderbilt, James J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, Johne D. Rockefeller, the Scranton family, and Charles Schwab. Many in todays sociaty would argure that these men were all robber barons, but this book gives us a hole new look in the history of these men and there lives and all they did for the rise in the U.S economic power.
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). When John D. Rockefeller merged with the railroad companies, he had gained control of a strategic transportation route that no other companies would be able to use. Rockefeller would then be able to force the hand on the railroads and was granted a rebate on his shipments of oil. This was a kind of secret agreement between the two industries.
Based on the Gilded Age, literally meaning a layer of gold is displayed on the outside and once you look deeper past through the top layer of gold, you can identify that the robber barons are the culprit of the corruption in the government who monopolized the corporate America. Although, there is a great transition from the agricultural economy towards the rapid growth of the urban and industrial society, the robber barons created a lot of problems for much of the working class poor in America. The robber barons use the power they obtain through their wealth for their own advantage and try to repress any form of the spread of democracy and the regulation in the marketplace, its work safety, the labor laws, and the certain amount of work hours which followed thereafter witnessing of the homestead strikes that touched on the major issues of the American nation. Both Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller dominated giant corporations, but they dictated much of the employees and greatly tried to divide out the employees from desperately trying to organize the reforms that would essentially stop the robber barons from taking advantage of them. The robber barons insisted that if you cannot work the day you are supposed to other than the Fourth of July, some other person will be a willing participant to come and take your job.
The Gilded Age marked a period of industrial growth in America. Mark Twain termed the period of 1865 to 1896 as the “Gilded Age” to {indicate} the widespread corruption lying underneath the glittering surface of the era. Known as either “captains of industry” or “robber barons,” several prominent figures shaped this time period; these capitalists gained great wealth and success with their industries. Corrupt and greedy are two words associated with the term “robber barons,” which referred to the capitalists who acquired their great wealth in less than admirable and ethical ways. On the other hand, many referred to the capitalists as the “captains of industry” that were celebrated as admirable philanthropists; their way of acquiring extreme
The mid-19th century is one of the major turnarounds in the history of the United States. That is the time when America became an industrial giant and emerged as one of the most powerful countries in the world. The Industrial Revolution changed the people’s way of living in the whole world, especially the United States, from hand and home productivity to machine and factory. America rose from a rural and agricultural country to an urban-industrial that introduced new technologies. The United States has been through a lot of ups and downs in spite of its emergence and three books tell the story of the Industrial America from three different perspectives.
Stiles, T.J. “Cornelius Vanderbilt.” The New York Times (New York City), January 2009. Accessed December 7, 2011. http://www.topics.nytimes.com.
The era that marked the end of civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century in the united states of America was coupled with enormous economic and industrial developments that attracted diverse views and different arguments on what exactly acquisition of wealth implied on the social classes in the society. It was during this time that the Marxist and those who embraced his ideologies came out strongly to argue their position on what industrial revolution should imply in an economic world like America. In fact, there was a rapid rise in the gross national product of the United States between 1874 and 1883. This actually sparked remarkable consequences on the political, social and economic impacts. In fact, the social rejoinder to industrialization had extensive consequences on the American society. This led to the emergence of social reform movements to discourse on the needs of the industrialized society. Various theories were developed to rationalize the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Various reformers like Andrew Carnegie, Henry George and William Graham Sumner perceived the view on the obligation of the wealthy differently. This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations.
He was already in his later years by the time the Gilded Age rolled around and didn't even get to see the uprising of some of the greatest leaders of the time. The railroad companies took advantage of their necessity by constantly overcharging customers, especially farmers. This led to one of the first labor unions in the United States, an organization known as the Grange.... ... middle of paper ...
The 19th century was a time of prosperity and adversity; there was a great deal of accomplishments in the 1800s, such as steamboats being introduced as a new technology and creation of railroads. Despite the growth during this period, it contained innumerable hardships; the introductions of new technologies continued, ultimately leading to increased competition. Competition played an enormous part in the success and downfall of many people during the 19th century, such as Cornelius Vanderbilt, who thrived in competition. Vanderbilt was not born with the skills and abilities to succeed in a field where many fell, he learned from the people he worked under and the conflicts he encountered during his apprenticeships. Those quarrels taught him the skills necessary to be the best in the steamboat trade as well as the railroad industry later in his life. Vanderbilt’s wealth was greatly associated with competing for business with individuals and companies. Cornelius Vanderbilt was truly one of a kind; he dominated many companies and people. It ultimately brought him to the pinnacle ...
While Carnegie held the aptitude for greatness regardless of his surroundings, without free enterprise, he would not have even had to option to take a chance or to explore new ideas. In regulated economies, not only is the currency and producer-consumer relationship controlled by the government, many times the media is as well, as not to create a system in which citizens long for something else. In this case Carnegie would not have had the access to the learning resources that he did, and would never have learned how to use a telegraph machine. There would have been no room for lateral growth, and the world as we know it may not exist without Carnegie’s courage and yearning to better himself and the world.
“After a year in the railroad industry Vanderbilt reportedly made 25 million.”7 Sometime after he expanded his the company to the westward side of the U.S gaining Michigan southern railway, the lake shore, and the Canada railway. How Cornelius Vanderbilt’s product influenced society is cause the railroad is one of the methods of transportation not the most efficient way of traveling anymore but a big number of people use it all over the world. Cornelius Vanderbilt was very successful at what he did because he was ruthless, smart, and new how to run his company. Also because at the time of his death he was worth about or more than “100 million dollars”8. Today his product is still highly used today by millions and millions of people day in and out. Why it still exists is because people use the train as transportation whether it is going home, to work, to school, people won’t always have cars to use or afford taking airlines. There are a few one or two interesting facts about Vanderbilt is that the railroad “was built by a majority of Chinese, Irish, and Italian.” 9 Also that “Vanderbilt had married his cousin France Armstrong but dealt with some controversy.”
You have now had an opportunity to learn about several big business leaders of the late 19th century. You are now going to come to your own conclusion as to whether you think your man should be viewed as a captain of industry or robber baron. You must provide evidence from your research to support your position. This essay must be typed, double spaced and include your biographies.
Vanderbilt is described as, “a walking ball of intensity…he ushered in a new era of corporate power in which only fools adhered to strict morals” (The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt). Vanderbilt changed the way people did business; he was a self-made millionaire which made him into a fearless, determined business man. Vanderbilt has been referred to as “The Red Baron” because he influenced the rise of big business. His competitors disliked Vanderbilt and Henry J. Raymond, editor of The New York Times, said Vanderbilt was, “Like those old German barons who, from their eyries along the Rhine, swooped down upon the commerce of the noble river and wrung tribute from every passenger that floated by”( Robber Barons or Captains of Industry?). In this quotation Henry J. Raymond is basically saying Vanderbilt got money in every way he could. This nickname could be seen as a bad thing, but Vanderbilt could not care less about a nickname if he was making the money. Vanderbilt’s qualities of intensity and drive contributed to his great success and separated him from other wealthy people during the gilded
Social Darwinism and The Gospel of Wealth were two late 19th century ideas that helped shape America’s views on social, economic, and political issues. The former applied the theory of natural selection to sociology and politics while the latter outlined a way for the country’s newly minted rich to redistribute their surplus wealth to the needy. Both concepts offer insight into the 1877-1900 period in American history known as the Gilded Age.