Blog #72 – Robber Barons or Captains of Industry
The robber barons / captains of industry are the way that the 19th Century industrialists have been portrayed throughout the past 150 years. Much of it depends upon the school of history that’s doing the interpretation.
The robber barons is a negative portrayal of people like Rockefeller and Vanderbilt who were ruthless and vindictive. They took over other businesses in a cruel manner and forced thousands of workers to work in terrible conditions and for low pay like Carnegie. 
They limited competition by buying other industries and ruthlessly crushing other companies. There were crooks like Jim Fisk and Jay Gould who tried cornering the gold market in 1869. They also printed phony RR stocks in order to defraud investors. RR magnate Jay Cooke boasted of how awesome the land next to his Northern Pacific RR was, but when investors bowed out of his scheme, his bank collapsed, triggering the Panic of 1873.
The captains of industry is a positive portrayal of industrialists shows these men as ingenuous, industrious, and fulfilling the American Dream. Some of these men like Carnegie and Rockefeller were lauded for their philanthropy. They exemplified the best of capitalism. These captains pushed America into the modern age, made products affordable, and could have exploited their monopolies by high prices but didn’t. J.P. Morgan was so powerful that he could have trashed the American economy and part of the world’s economy along with it if he so chose to, but he didn’t. In fact, when he died, America created the Federal Reserve Bank, its third and current attempt at a central bank.
Use the website below to research some of the major industrialists.
Your job: Analyze the discussion above and come up with your own analysis – which do you think fits the time period best? Is it a combo? Explain.
I believe the economic leaders of this time period were both Robber Barons and Captains of Industry because based on their different qualities you will find different results. At the time period of these controversial people, they would mostly be classified as Robber Barons because they were in charge of corporations that didn’t treat their workers well. The working conditions weren’t great and no matter how hard the worker worked they could not reach the American Dream. For the workers, the rags to riches story was impossible as their employers never gave opportunities for higher positions. The poor just seemed to be poorer and the wealthy Robber Barons just became wealthier. The economic leaders could also be called Captains of Industry because that’s what they were, they owned the world. The leaders like JP Morgan made businesses succeed and become profitable which created more jobs. Even though the jobs didn’t pay well, they still made jobs with their profitable industries. They were also responsible with their money, they never held cities hostage or exploited their power by excessively charging in their monopolies. The Captains of Industry also gave our country a model of how to succeed in business, especially by cutting costs. JP Morgan, besides buying failing businesses and making them profitable, he also eliminated competition through mergers, expanded horizontally. Rockefeller expanded his oil business horizontally and vertically buying up oil shops, naming them standard oil, buying oil refineries, and buying transportations for his oil.
The above argument can be analyzed as nothing less than a combination. I think if you look at industrialists as a whole there are some aspects that are good (captains of Industry) and bad (robber Barons). The good aspect is that they did often help to further modernize society with what they were selling and how they distributed it. They also helped to create and enforce the capitalist society that we all know and love… well that’s not true, that can either be seen as benefit or a downfall. Either way you see it, the world definitely wouldn’t be the same without them doing the things they have done (as innovators and distributers). For example- J. P. Morgan’s showing off of Edison’s electric light bulb introduced his invention to the everyday household. The light bulb in the home was a trend that quickly spread to other rich private homes and is now something I couldn’t even imagine living without. There were also a lot of negative associated with them as well. An obvious issue to me caused by industrialists is how wide they made the gap between the rich and the poor. That is an unavoidable consequence of controlling millionaires, sadly. Also, on a more individual scale, some of them cheated the poor or made them even worse off instead of helping them (Rockefeller/Vanderbilt). There were also some industrialists who were nicer upon closer look, such as Carnegie. By his death he had given most of his wealth away, so generally, he tried to help out the poorer. He himself, however still did some questionable things and was a major hypocrite. All in all, as a whole and on an individual scale, industrialists had major benefits to society, but also downfalls to poorer people at the time who were below them.
The industrial moguls of the late 19th century are a combo of both people who are advancing the development of our country’s culture, economy, and our stance in the world. But also, they are comparable to greedy landlords of the Middle Ages in the aspect that they are using the workers for their own good and they only care about making money. Both viewpoints of history are true. These industrial moguls are considered Robber Barons because many had ruthless business tactics to make their companies great. Many tried to eliminate any kind of competition that they could by monopolizing the production process (Rockefeller’s Oil), buying out any kind of competition (Vanderbilt), outselling all competition so they would collapse (Carnegie). All of these men were also making massive amounts of money while their workers toiled in awful working conditions and were paid very little, many of the workers didn’t want to say anything because they were afraid they would lose their jobs if they did say anything and since many were immigrants, some probably couldn’t speak English at all. However, to be fair, these men all symbolized good things as well. A few of these men were not born into wealth like Carnegie so this was a symbol that said that hard work would get you to the top. Also J.P. Morgan, possibly the wealthiest man on the planet at the time, helped the U.S. economy get back on its feet several times. Many of these men also became philanthropists after their millionaire works. Carnegie built over 2,000 libraries in the world after his works, Vanderbilt outside of business is best known for founding the world renowned Vanderbilt University in Tennessee and he gave away all his money to charity after he died. Therefore, both schools of history work for these men.
I believe that the 19th Century industrialists were in fact captains of Industry, and not robber barons as some people believe they were. The central reason I believe this is because when looking back through history, these people helped the economy of the world and the US more than they hurt individual people. For example, J.P. Morgan, the banker behind all of these captains of industry, backed all of these wealthy and influential men because he believed they were the key to American economic success at that time. Had the finance not been there the industrial revolution of the late 19th Century likely would have never happened. As of the inventors/innovators themselves, they were just at the right place at the right time in history to make a lot of money and influence the world. The ideals of these industrial thinkers have transcended their time period and still have massive effects on the world today. For example, Edison and his revolutionary incandescent lightbulb is still in use today over 100 years after patents were filed for the invention. The biggest figure out of all of these influential men was John D. Rockefeller. He and his Standard Oil monopoly on oil refining is an example still today of what a true monopoly is and a great business model. Arguably the biggest monopoly in history just shows that America needed people like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and J.P. Morgan in the country at the time to continue and expand as they did.
I believe that the industry leaders were both robber barons and also captains of industry, depending on who they were and what actions they took in their “reigns.” Some, like Morgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie expanded industries and capitalized upon the results of the first industrial revolution, launching ideals like vertical and horizontal trade, and this created jobs and economic success for the country as a whole. Their contributions outside of their own work benefitted the United States too; Rockefeller Center and Carnegie Mellon University are still major public buildings today. When Carnegie retired, he donated millions of his earnings to the public. These men were the industrial leaders who acted as the positive Captains of Industry in the Gilded Era. There were, of course, industry leaders who were more robber than benefactor. These included Jim Fisk and Jay Gould, among many other company leaders who robbed the poor to give to the rich. It was they who divided the chasm between the rich and the poor and gave way for the tarnishing of the reputation of industry leaders. Money scandals such as the Credit Mobilier fraud led to people regarding leaders as thieves who had only their own best interests. This wasn’t always the case, as evidenced through people like JP Morgan, who was so confident in his investments that he used the products himself as a consumer, and Carnegie, who donated millions to the public’s benefit. It cannot be said that all industry leaders in the Gilded Era were pure in their motives and methods for obtaining money, but it isn’t fair to generalize that all were robbers as well. Some, yes, were of a detriment to the public and unfairly treated the working class with their jobs and profits, but some acted amiably towards the public working class and despite their wealth tried to compensate for the divide between the classes.
I think that the economic leaders of the time were a mix of both robber barons and captains of industry. Andrew Carnegie, for example, was one of whom had a little bit of both. Carnegie was taught to values when he was a kid. From his mother, to not care about anyone else but himself in life so he would not end up in poverty in his life. From his father, always put others before himself and try to make their lives a little bit better. His mother’s key values, representing the robber baron of the age, are seen in low pay for his workers, ridiculously long hours, and little respect for his workers needs and wants. He also agreed with Frick to not improve working conditions, hours, or raise pay. He gave Frick the permission to go on and send bounty hunters after innocent workers because of a strike and was ready to replace all of the strikers with fresh new people who were willing to work with low pay and long hours at any time. Another aspect of the robber baron can be seen in “The Worker’s 10 Commandments” where the rich man is portrayed as a slave master and the worker, a measly slave that can be replaced or killed of anytime because the master has law on his side, where the wage slave does not. I also think that it is also trying to incorporate the rich man as like a god seeming as it says that the workers has to do everything and anything the master tells him to and cannot stray. On the other hand, as shown by the father, Carnegie was also a captain of industry. By the end of his life he had given over 350 million dollars away to charity organizations, founding libraries, and education. He would then be seen as a captain of industry making amends for what he did earlier in his life by being a major philanthropist. He gained a lot more fame by giving away his money and by the end of his life, the businessman would be seen in a positive light unlike the robber barons of old. Another aspect of the captain of industry can be seen in the ideal of “Gospel of Wealth”. This says that a rich man cannot live with himself unless he gives away half of his earnings to the poor. Carnegie cave away 90% of his earnings away by the end of his life making him both a robber baron and a captain of industry.
Skyeler McQueen
APUSH
Wickersham
February 4th, 2015
I believe that these men were Captains of Industry. Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John Rockefeller started the second industrial revolution in the United States. They built America’s economy to be one of the strongest in the world (before it crashed…). These men also created jobs for Americans and immigrants. For example, Andrew Carnegie built steel plants that used the Bessemer refining process. The efficient new process was revolutionary, while requiring more workers. Carnegie proved himself a Captain of Industry again by donating 90% of his wealth to philanthropic causes; he gave money to build 2,000 libraries. Andrew Carnegie exemplified the American dream by rising out of poverty in to the world of luxury and success. John D. Rockefeller was another Captain of Industry. Rockefeller started as the son of a “pitch man” and worked his way up to be an oil tycoon, fulfilling the classic rags to riches story. He started many businesses, including the Standard Oil Company. Rockefeller gave back as well; he donated over $75,000,000 to The University of Chicago. These Captains of Industry weren’t perfect men, despite all of their admirable qualities. Rockefeller created the notorious Standard trust as well as the Standard Improvement Scheme. Andrew Carnegie supported Frick’s plan to break the Pullman strike. Both of these Captains of Industry were Robber Barons. I believe that all Captains of Industry during this time had to be. Men like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and even Morgan, had to embody some of those traits to be successful. In order to thrive as a Captain of Industry, you must also be a Robber Baron.
The late 18th century would initially appear to be commanded by captains of industry, due to the outward success of the men in control without any obviously illegal actions performed to create their economic juggernauts. The men seemed responsible in keeping their empire intact, J. Pierpont Morgan had an incredibly strong influence in the economy and he never directly sent it spiraling into depression, and in fact was so adept at managing his businesses and finance that he was asked twice to bail the United States out. Carnegie was known for taking vast amounts of his accrued funds and sharing them liberally, and he had a “steel” determination to make it to the top of the class based food chain, after having started his life as a poor Irishman. The men of such economic control as Rockefeller strictly avoided lording over consumers with gargantuan prices, thus avoided having their control of the market taken by the government and handed it out to competition they so detested. However, the robber baron view comes from men like Carnegie and Rockefeller lording over consumers, competitors, and workers via other methods; crushing and annexing competing businesses, and shoving workers into appalling conditions with strenuous working hours almost always clocking in over 10 hours per day for a disappointingly and disproportionately small sum that often required every member of the family to work to even scrape by. Therefore, the men of economic status of Carnegie and Rockefeller proved to be both captains of their industries, but not to far removed and above the title of robber barons for the people crushed beneath their feet in their efforts to climb the social and economic ladder and remain there.
I think that the economic leaders of the time period was a combination of both Robber Barons, as well as Captains of Industry. There were good aspects to Industrialists and then there were some bad. The better aspects of the economic leaders of the time period were that these people were advancing the development of America’s culture and economy, by creating new businesses and new jobs. They also made businesses therefor, opening new jobs (which, though they did not pay well, were still jobs) and opportunities for those people within the lower classes. Some of the worse aspects of the economic leaders was that many of these people only cared about their profit. A huge negative that was caused by industrialists was the widened gap it created between the rich and the poor. Some Industrialists even cheated the poor and made everything worse for them instead of aiding them. Either way that you view the industrialists, society would be nothing like it is today without them. An example of this is when J.P Morgan showed off the lightbulb to the public eye. The lighting of a home with a lightbulb became trendy among people among that time period and now, many people couldn’t imagine their lives life without it. The captains of industry inspired people across the country with their “rags to riches” stories. Overall, industrialists did not only supply society with major benefits, but also, hurt many of the poorer people who were below them in the social classes.
Blog 72
I think the world consisted of both Robber Barons and Captains of Industry. You look at all the people who ran businesses back in the gilded age and there were too many in each category to choose one. I mean there are definite people to each category. Vanderbilt and Rockefeller took over any part of their industry. They didn’t want any competition what so ever. So their only way to eliminate competition was to buy out the entire industry. Since they had bought out the entire industry they were making so much money they didn’t know what to do without all. They were so selfish that they dint care what happened in their factories and mills as long as production was fast an easy. If someone was seriously injured or killed they would just hire someone else to take their place immediately. Those are some points someone could use for the Robber Barons argument.
For the Captains of Industry argument you have two great examples. You have Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan. These two restore faith and humanity into big business owners. Carnegie was a self-made man who didn’t spend his money like he couldn’t care less what happened to it. Morgan basically gave all his money away throughout his life. These two gentleman ha enough money to destroy the U.S. economy but they didn’t. Even good things came out of this. So you cant give a one true answer and a name for these people. There are too many different types of people to put under one category.
Capitalism. Love it or hate it, it’s become an integral part of American society, and I think it’s safe to say that it’s here to stay. But it wasn’t always this way. Once upon a time (before the American Civil War), America’s economy was based in agriculture. Humble farmers made up a good portion of the population, and those who weren’t farmers almost certainly benefitted from it, directly or indirectly. Then, in the years following the Civil War, something changed: America industrialized. The following decades would be called many things, but two names stand out the most: the second industrial revolution and the Gilded Age. These names sum up post-Civil War America almost perfectly: it was a time of rapid industrialization, in which the economy went from being based on farming to factories and the businesses that controlled them. And at the same time, it was a period of immense wealth, at least for some. But what caused this change to occur? In my opinion, it was men like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie who acted as the catalysts for this renovation of American society. These men were at the forefront of the business world, pushing for their corporations to expand and to innovate. For instance, Carnegie utilized the Bessemer method for making steel, and essentially revolutionized the steel industry. Without him, the Bessemer process may never have seen the light of day, and if it had it may have taken several years or even decades longer. And along with the innovations spawning from this newly industrialized America, the workforce also increased. As factories opened and businesses grew, more and more people were required to fill the new positions, which lead to lower unemployment and an overall stronger economy. So while some people may look back at Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and their peers as robber barons who stole from the middle- and lower-class to further their own gains, who forced their workers to endure harsh factory conditions for little pay, I feel that their contributions to American society as a whole vastly overshadows their shortcomings, and for this reason I would label them as “captains of industry.”
I find that the industrial leaders of the time were a combination of both Robber Barons and Captains of Industry depending on the person and the results they got. Many of the millionaires like Rockefeller would be considered Robber Barons, as they ran major corporations that made tons of money, but treated their workers poorly. No matter how hard the working class worked, they could never achieve a great amount of wealth because they were stuck in the same position and could never work their way up. While the poor were often losing money or making just enough money to get by, the Robber Barons just became wealthier. The millionaires of this time only deepened the gap between the rich and poor making it even harder for the poor to gain wealth. There is a good side to the wealthy industrial leaders of the time period as they were able to invest in new advancements that would end up changing the country forever. J.P. Morgan was able to invest in Edison’s lightbulb which took off and totally transformed a majority of the homes and businesses during the Gilded Age. Another Captain of Industry, Andrew Carnegie, donated most of his wealth to different organizations by the time he died although he was an industrial leader. Carnegie was a huge hypocrite even though he helped society. Even though many of the big industrialists of the Gilded Age were considered Robber Barons, as they took over businesses and forced people to work for low pay in horrid conditions, they were the ones who also revolutionized America with new inventions and ways of doing things. Therefore, the industrial leaders were both Captains of Industry and Robber Barons.
I believe that they are captains of industry. Not robber barons. They were great examples of the American dream. They worked themselves up from nothing to become the richest and most powerful men alive. Now, I would have to agree that these men were too powerful than they should have been allowed to be, however, they never abused the prices. For instance, Rockefeller owned 90% of oil in the U.S, but never abused the prices. So while they did have a ton of wealth and power, they never abused prices even though they could, and in the process made a large supply of affordable goods available to the public. They stimulated the economy and brought America into the industrial age. They made America the number one producer of many goods and because of that stimulated the economy to the point where it would become the world’s largest economy. Once again, they could have abused their power and trashed the economy but didn’t. In fact J.P Morgan bailed the U.S out twice and after he died the Federal Reserve was created. These men made America a great economic power. Also, hey crated thousands of jobs. I know that many people would be quick to point out the poor working conditions and I would agree that they should have been better. But, without those jobs, the workers would have no jobs and be even worse off. And its not like people were forcing them to do these low paying jobs, they chose to do them because they were the best available. If there were better paying jobs, the workers would have taken them. But there weren’t, and because of that, these captains of industry provided thousands of jobs to people that would otherwise have none. In conclusion, the captains of industry did not abuse their powers, built the American economy to be stronger than ever, gave the consumer quality, affordable products, and provided thousands of jobs to those who would otherwise have none.
In my opinion the economic leaders of the 19th century were both robber barons and captains of industry. It seems that it’s very challenging to be one without being the other. It is understandable how these men were thought of as robber barons, especially during the time period. They worked and worked their workers in very poor conditions and paid them incredibly low wages. At times these men were ruthless and selfish to obtain what they wanted. For example, Andrew Carnegie fired Henry Frick after Frick had just been shot and Frick was basically running a lot of the company at that point. On top of that people like Vanderbilt would do sleazy things, like lowering fares to almost free, so that competing companies would be forced to buy Vanderbilt’s company, once again giving Vanderbilt money and power. Although these men could easily be called robber barons, it is also evident that they were captains of industry too. Some of these men spearheaded and helped revolutionize industries that America was built on. On top of that men like Carnegie and Rockefeller gave away millions of dollars to charity, after they had made their money, but regardless they still gave away millions to charity. These men sort of exemplified the American dream, even if they got a little help along the way. Carnegie started out as a poor, first generation, immigrant who then got some help from wealthy men and he eventually worked his way up to being one of the wealthiest men in America. John D. Rockefeller didn’t start out from as humble as beginnings as Carnegie, but he definitely didn’t start out with the amount of wealth he ended with. His father was away a lot, because he was a “pitch man” who could “cure cancer” and he made a decent amount of money but Rockefeller really worked his way from the bottom up. In the 19th century and even in todays world it is very hard to be a captain of industry without, at least at a time, being a robber baron too.
The 19th Century industrialists are, in my opinion, robber barons. Even though they fulfilled the American Dream idea and expanded the industrial industry with their companies, they were doing it out of their own profit and desire. They, like you said, “…took over other businesses in a cruel manner and forced thousands of workers to work in terrible conditions and for low pay like Carnegie.” The praise that individuals like Carnegie were given for not exploiting their monopolies by high praises can actually be their way of keeping it safe on their side by avoiding for issues that may come their way. I see theme industrialists as greedy men who found their way to wealth without the use of slavery. They treated their workers almost like slaves and used their wealth not to give their struggling workers raises, but to add it to their will or donate it to wherever they wanted to. This negative portrayal of these industrialists seems to fit the time period the most because of the many articles that support my claim. In his later age, Carnegie said, “To continue much longer overwhelmed by business cares and with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of permanent recovery.” Carnegie was a man that wanted lots of wealth and did not realize how greedy he was becoming as he aged and as he earned more money from the industry. According to a PBS article on Andrew Carnegie, it was said that Carnegie supported the laborers rights and encouraged laborers to maintain their jobs along with protection but Carnegie was a hypocrite in this matter. He not only gave his workers low wages for working long hours, he also supported Henry Frick who kicked workers from their jobs and got Pinkerton thugs to scare strikers from striking. Another Robber Baron was Cornelius Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt, after gaining enough wealth to overpower the government, said with his arrogant personality, “Law, what do I care about the law? Ain’t I got the power?”. Vanderbilt was well aware of his wealth and used illegal methods to make more profit for himself. He did not do it for the good of the country; he did it for himself and his greed. The law protects the citizens of the U.S. and by saying that he doesn’t care about the law proves that he was a robber baron and didn’t care about the nation’s benefit. Because of his actions, he advanced the U.S.’S Industrial industry while putting his wealth as his priority. Carnegie and Vanderbilt achieved the American Dream and are both examples of robber barons of the 19th Century. On a more positive state of mind, i believe these men still had some good in them because of their background and determination to achieve their goals. They inspired others even though they were robber barons. So, in a way they were also captains of industry because of the aftermath of their actions.
Citations:
“Andrew Carnegie.” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
“H102 Lecture 05: Businessmen and “That Creature” the Corporation.” H102 Lecture 05: Businessmen and “That Creature” the Corporation. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2015.
“The Industrial Age in America: Robber Barons and Captains of Industry | EDSITEment.” The Industrial Age in America: Robber Barons and Captains of Industry | EDSITEment. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Feb. 2015.
I believe the time period represented both a mixture of captains of industry and robber barons. A case could be made for captains of Industry because the top economic leaders back then such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan set the standard for modern business and economics. From them, we see the creation of trusts and monopolies which can be seen as good and bad, but they were new and innovative thoughts on how business should work. They were also captains of industry because they supplied many jobs in their massive factories, as well as making the products from their company available to everyone. The mass production of goods made luxuries available to the common man, with prices that they easily could’ve exploited, but they didn’t. Also, many industrial leaders believed it was their Christian duty to give back to the community, such as Andrew Carnegie. This is evident in The Gospel of Wealth. This shows a genuine care in the business class; that they actually look out for the lower classes, making them appear as captains of industry. A case could also be made for the business leaders to be seen as robber barons. The robber barons exploited their workers for low wage, and without effective unions at the time, the business leaders would keep maximum profits. This is where the industrial leaders could be seen as greedy. Another example of greed in the corporate class is big business owners taking advantage of small companies by buying them out just so they could sell them for profit, as Vanderbilt did. Another example of buying out is Rockefeller when he put a monopoly on oil, by creating standard oil.
I think the argument proposed doesn’t only come down to one side or the other. Having the Captains of Industry look wouldn’t work if they hadn’t been Robber Barons. The economic leaders of the time period were both Robber Barons and Captains of the Industry. Their industries wouldn’t have been able to be successful without their innovative ways of thinking, along with their harsh business strategies that may have portrayed them as bad. These innovative industrialists were able to further modernize their time period by introducing and sharing their businesses. Without being a robber baron and ruthlessly crushing other companies for their benefits, these big industrialists wouldn’t even be considered the leading captains of industry of the time period. The companies and industries they got into couldn’t have been successful without the business strategies of being a tough businessman. These industrialists helped us build the capitalist society in America. Before there had mostly been small businesses that catered to their general area, but now these capitalists were able to push themselves to the top of the newly modernized and rising society. They would buy out these smaller companies and expand their industry. These Captains of Industry were living the American Dream, but in order to do so they had to be ruthless and carry on with the cruel treatment of their workers and other companies. The best way to look at this is that these rich industrialists were helping out the economy and American society, but in doing so they were hurting individuals with their poor treatment and making everyone a part of their bigger plan for America.
I believe that its a combination of both, the economic leaders of this time were both Robber Barons and Captains of Industry based on what these people did. These people as in Rockefeller and Vanderbilt took over other smaller businesses in cruel manners and they had to work in awful conditions and in low pay. Rockefeller and Vanderbilt cheated out the poor and put them in an even worse position financially than before. Two Business men by the name of Jim Fisk and Jay Gould would also show the Robber Barons side, they were the greedy men they wanted all the gold. Fisk and Gould would sell “watered,” or over-valued, railroad stock to the public. When people found out their stocks were worth less than they thought, they sold them at a loss, and the railroad went bankrupt. But Fisk and Gould had their money from this so it didn’t matter. But on the brighter side of things I think Rockefeller and Vanderbilt also had the best interest in mind for the time period and the future. One example is Edison’s invention of the light bulb. Without J.P Morgan showing off it wouldn’t have been possible to make it into the everyday house hold as quickly as it did. These men were brilliant and were trying to make their products more affordable for everyone so that it would impact the time period not just a certain group of people. J.P Morgan had so much power that he could have ruined America’s economy along with part of the worlds but he didn’t. Because of these reason I think that it was a combination of both they weren’t just Robber Barons or Captains of Industry. They were good men with only one goal and sometimes they had to do dirty work to achieve their American dream.
I believe that these huge pioneers in industry resembled the best of capitalism at the time. But to not be ignorant there are plenty of faults and borderline criminal actions made by the head of these huge corporations, but I believe that the good that these people and companies did for the general masses and the country outway those negatives. For instance, J. P. Morgan was at one time the most wealthy men in the world and on multiple occasions he utilized his connections and connections to benefit the country as well as the people. These captains of industry helped develope America through advancements of industry and industrialization. People like Edison and Tesla also found their big break because of the sponsorship and promotion given to them by wealthy businessmen who sought out for the bigger and better. The way these economic leaders moved their money around it is easy to make an argument for both sides, whether their actions were caused because of the “right” intentions. For the steel pioneer Andrew Carnegie he was able to make his millions by being in the right place at the right time along with the proper mindset and ideals of a businessman. Carnegie was able to control every aspect of the mining, manufacturing, and distribution of steel production called vertical integration and during this process he was destroying as well as building the economy. This is because while he was monopolizing the steel industry he destroyed or absorbed companies on his trek to become the head in the steel industry in the country. But at the same time carnegie was able to strengthen businesses’ who benefited from steel like railroads and other mechanical industries. He was also able to create funds and make charitable donations in suit with the teachings of the “Gospel of Wealth” which meant that wealthy people were morally obligated to give their money back to others in society. Although I believe that these captains of industry did much good it is impossible to have a successful business and economy without a being at least part robber baron.
I believe that the time period best fits the Robber Barons and Captains of Industry. This time period was not an honest one. Although, they did a lot of damage they progressed the economy and the life. The may have been crooks like Fisk and Gould, but they made money. And people knew about their money. Fisk was known for his coach rides in abundance of horses. The Robber Barons tactic worked for a while, but eventually when the bank collapsed there had to be another way. Fisk and Gould tried to get back in the game by working on a railroad scam. People obviously caught on and that’s where they got the name “robber Barons.” This is where the combination comes in. Without the panic of 1837 we possibly could have gotten away with all of this fraud. The Robber Barons started it, but the Captains really created the long lasting effect. Philanthropists like Carnegie and Rockefeller mentioned are the good guys. The turned the time period a little more of a honest one. They knew who their consumers were by making affordable products for their customers. J.P. Morgan put his faith and money in Edison and invested in the light bulb. He created something in the best interest of the people. Obviously it made him lots of money, but he did It honestly. These men modernized America and created the true American Dream. They got to the top on good leadership and skill. After analyzing this article I can without a doubt say that the Robber Barons and the Captains of Industry perfectly fit this time period.
I believe that the likes of Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan were all captains of industry. Firstly I’d like to point out that the leading school of thought in the time period that these men lived in was social Darwinism and the idea of natural selection, therefore in the mind of the majority of the people in that time period believed that if you were the best at something or the leader of an industry it’s because you deserved it. Also during this time period monopolies of any industry was legal therefore everything these businessmen were doing was completely fair considering that all of it was legal. I believe America was built on men that discovered, because that’s how this modern day nation came to be, it was discovered. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and others were also discoverers in their own ways; they were discoverers in loopholes of the law. These great men used what they discovered to their own advantage. Loopholes and use it to a great advantage, and that is what all these great men had in common they were the discoverers of loopholes. No only were these men good businessmen but they were true innovators, for example Robert Carnegie helped finance the first ever light bulb one of the greatest inventions of all time. In conclusion I believe that the millionaires made by the Gilded Age, like Rockefeller were “Captains of Industry”, rather than “Robber Barons” because they discovered new things like buying out every company in their industry, that pushed America to create laws that benefitted the nation like outlawing monopolies. Furthermore, they created some of the most essential inventions ever like that of the light bulb.
Personally, I think both names are valid. Capitalism as a system is flawed so of course those who personify it would be flawed themselves. If you’re thinking of giving Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller and the like titles based on their success in capitalism then “Captains of Industry” is a wonderful title. Though the more that I think about it the praise given to these men is mainly “congrats! You’re not as big of a jerk as you could have been!”. Which is exemplified Morgan being able to trash the economy and not trashing it and most of the men having the opportunity to monopolize by high prices but not. So is someone not doing something horrible make them a hero? The flaws of these men lie in their morals. They put their workers into horrible conditions which I think is deplorable. The other things that were mentioned above were things the men did to companies. Yes, it was a cruel way to behave but that is business. Business is cruel. But I value a leader more by how they treat their workers, their customers, and people in general than by how they treat companies. For giving these men a title, I think neither and both names apply. Though it’s a longer title, I would refer to them as “men who were wildly successful in business ventures in the late 1800s to the early 1900s”. It’s a mouthful but I think it’s more accurate than Robber Barons, which makes them sound like a gang of petty criminals, or Captains of Industry, which makes them sound like knights in shining armor riding through the dawn brandishing capitalism like a sword.
I believe the industrialists were a combination of both the robber barons and the captains of industry for a few reasons. We can not group all of the influential wealthy men together and make generalizations because they are all different, they are human. All of them had flaws and good thing about them. Some did resemble robber barons more while others resembled captains of industry more. For example, Carnegie did many bad things in his life including crushing competing companies and not giving his workers proper pay. But he also did many good things with his wealth for example, funding philanthropies such as universities and halls. Another person who was a good example of having both sides is J.P. Morgan. J.P. Morgan was one of the most influential man in American economy was even approached by several presidents to help lower the national debt, yet he did not abuse his power. Though he did not abuse it, Morgan did buy out businesses he saw as competitors to the businesses he supported. My third example of a person portraying both sides is John D. Rockefeller. One example of being a robber baron is when he bought out his partners in business to form Rockefeller & Andrews Oil Company. Another example is when Rockefeller uses the scandal surrounding the South Improvement Company scheme to persuade other Cleveland refiners to sell out to Standard Oil. Following the so-called “Cleveland Massacre,” Rockefeller owns 22 of the 26 refineries in town and gives him a lot of power. Rockefeller was also a captain of industry because he had man philanthropies including donating money to the University of Chicago and creating Rockefeller University, now a leader in experimental medicine. All these examples show there is more than one side to the influential wealthy men of the Industrial Age.
I think that the industry leaders were in charge of how people lived their lives and captions of the Industry. Some, like Morgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie expanded industries and capitalized upon the results of the first industrial revolution, making the ideals like vertical and horizontal trade, and this created jobs and economic success for the country as a whole. Their contributions outside of their own work benefitted the United States too; Rockefeller Center and Carnegie Mellon University are still major public buildings today. When Carnegie retired, he donated millions of his earnings to the public. These men were the industrial leaders who acted as the positive Captains of Industry in the Gilded Era. There were, of course, industry leaders who were more robber than benefactor. These included Jim Fisk and Jay Gould, among many other company leaders who robbed the poor to give to the rich. It was they who divided the chasm between the rich and the poor and gave way for the tarnishing of the reputation of industry leaders. Money scandals such as the Credit Mobilier fraud led to people regarding leaders as thieves who had only their own best interests. This wasn’t always the case, as evidenced through people like JP Morgan, who was so confident in his investments that he used the products himself as a consumer, and Carnegie, who donated millions to the public’s benefit. It cannot be said that all industry leaders in the Gilded Era were pure in their motives and methods for obtaining money, but it isn’t fair to generalize that all were robbers as well. Some, yes, were of a detriment to the public and unfairly treated the working class with their jobs and profits, but some acted amiably towards the public working class and despite their wealth tried to compensate for the divide between the classes.
Industrial leaders in the gilded age should be looked upon as captains of industry because of their achievements and successes. In 1895 the United States government was arguably the poorest it had ever been. Investors and bankers who held government bonds were worried by the panic of 1893 and the weakening of the economy. A run on the bank quickly occurred. With under 20 million in gold reserves left, president Grover Cleveland was able to rely upon J. P. Morgan to discretely bail out the government with 60 million dollars in gold. Without the help of Morgan, the country would have fallen to levels worse than the upcoming depression.
Additionally, critics of the many captains of Industry seem to forget that these industrialists were the ones who helped make America. Carnegie’s steel, Vanderbilt’s rail, J. P. Morgan’s money, all of these were contributions which were essential to developing America. Steel allowed for the great skyscrapers and bridges of the east and the huge transcontinental rails west. Rail strengthened the economy and allowed for America to truly become a mass producer. The wealth of Wall Street was able to save the economy and helped America become great.
Another lasting effect of the captains of industry was their philanthropy. At the end of his life, Andrew Carnegie gave many millions of dollars to philanthropic endeavors. He was a big supporter of reading, so one of his “projects” was to help fund and create public libraries in Britain, Canada and America. Over 3,000 public libraries owe their foundation to the help of industrial philanthropy. The captains of industry were able to utilize their wealth to help improve the lives of Americans.
I believe that the economic leaders of the time were Robber Barons and Captains of Industry. I think this because at this time they were seen as Robber Barons by the workers, but now we see them as Captains of Industry because of the business methods they used to achieve their success. Workers would see them as Robber Barons because the working conditions were hard and paid less than was desired. There were little opportunities for workers at this time to move up in class or pay, because the economic leaders did not give these positions up. This was a time in which the divide between the poor and rich started larger and continued to grow larger. We now look back on this period of history and see them as Captains of Industry because these men dominated the economic field with their entrepreneurship and their inventions. For example, J.P. Morgan and Thomas Edison, Edison created an item that Morgan though would sell. This caused Morgan to invest in Edison’s product and the investment money was able to help the product grow, and therefore creating more jobs. Even though these jobs may not have paid well, they were still jobs, something most Americans and immigrants needed. Another reason we see them as the Captains of Industry is because of their ways of cutting costs. J.P. Morgan demonstrated one way to cut out costs when he would buy out old businesses and then made them profitable, or he would buy out the competition in a merger.
I think that the big businessmen during this time period were definitely a combination of both robber baron and captains of industry. On one hand, all they wanted was money, and they would do anything to get it. On the other hand, the things they did helped America in great ways. I think it was people like J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie’s attitudes and hunger for wealth that was beneficial to everyone else in the long run. They created things like pools and trusts, that conned people out of money, which is a negative thing. But, they provided jobs for thousands and thousands of people, which is a positive thing. I would say that they were more on the side of robber baron, simply because of their motives. The reason they created their multi-billion dollar industries was to make the billions, not support the poor. I don’t think its wrong for them to have wanted wealth (who doesn’t?), but I don’t think that trying to help people was at the top of their list of what to do with their riches. Its like our debate from class; big companies only have the people’s best interest at heart when it comes to making more money.
Amelia
I believe that the capitalists of this time such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan, were both robber barons and Captains of industry. They helped to completely industrialize these industries as well as make these products cheaper in some cases. In cases like JP Morgan where he invested in Edison this was for the greater good of the United States of America. It helped to put electric lighting all over the country and make it very accessible for people. If you look at Rockefeller and what he did to people who opposed him and refused to sell their business that could be viewed as more of a robber baron approach. Rockefeller would lower his prices and sell so much of his stand oil to people that the company would have no choice other than to sell him their business or go out of business completely. I think that without these men like Morgan to continuously save the US economy we could’ve been in a lot of trouble from an economic standpoint. These men controlled much of the wealth in America and instead of being ruthless they helped the economy and continued to help advance technologies with their investments and support. Without these men our country would not be as far ahead as we are now and they should be seen more as Captains of industry rather than robber barons. If these men took the robber baron approach it could’ve resulted in deep economic declines which would’ve made their fortunes worth less. It was the smarter decision to keep the economy doing as well as possible.
I believe that the industrial leaders of this time period were neither robber barons nor captains of industry. This is because the question that was posed is a false dichotomy; the industrial leaders of the time possessed both positive and negative characteristics from the “Captains of Industry” and the “Robber Barons” viewpoints respectively. As is with most things, the negative qualities of these individuals are most easily apparent. As evident in the name, the robber barons were extremely wealthy. They obtained a large deal of this wealth by very aggressive means. They possessed a Benjamin Franklin-esque mentality of “Join or Die” when it came to dealing with their competition. They were very stingy with the wages that they gave to their workers. This further widened the emerging gap between the wealthy and the poor and in doing so made it more difficult for people to find a “middle ground” economically. Despite all of these negative things there is still a great deal of good that these individuals went on to accomplish. Primarily, all of the leading industrialists were “self-made men” to the extent that they put even the most glorious of Horatio Alger’s works to shame. They were living proof that the American Dream was still around and could be obtained through hard work and determination. They were the individuals who pushed industry forward to make things more affordable and useful. They were cloaked in immense power yet didn’t exploit it fully to their advantage. Many of these industrial leaders went on to become the greatest philanthropists of the age; Rockefeller poured millions into the University of Chicago and Carnegie gave up 90% of all his wealth before he died and would’ve probably gave up more than that if he had lived longer. It is for these reasons that I believe that these industrial leaders walk in history in the grey space between the two aforementioned schools of thought; they were neither angels nor demons, only men.
I believe industrialists were both robber barons and captains of industry. Some of the things they did were bad, not helping the people and some were good, helping everybody in the country. They did many things to help everybody such as, giving more jobs, sustaining a strong economy, and donated to various causes. J.P. Morgan held one fourth of the worlds economy at once and kept it strong. Morgan made businesses more profitable and made more jobs for the american people allowing them to live their lives. In addition, many industrialists donated money to various causes, Carnegie donated all of his money after retiring. People like Carnegie and J.P. Morgan portray how industrialists were captains of industry. His actions portray the side of industrialists that were captains of industry who were trustworthy and kept the economy flowing. On the other hand, industrialists can be viewed as robber barons also. People such as Rockefeller and Vanderbilt who were in it for profitability. They would buy out companies, put people in awful working conditions, and make millions off of others. The jobs they provided were low paying and rarely had any opportunities for promotion. Much of this work could be compared to feudalism, where the peasants make barely enough money to live off of money and the rulers get all of the benefits. People like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller portray the Robber barons side of the industrialists. In conclusion, Industrialists acted as both robber barons and captains of industry in the decisions they made.
I think that the businessmen were both Captains of Industry and Robber Barons. The vast majority of rich businessmen did not get there from being kind to everyone. These capitalists did hire workers for unfairly low wages, when they should have been paid much much more. But most of these people that were payed low, were unemployed, unskilled immigrants. Even though they weren’t paid as much, he took very poor, homeless people and gave them jobs and opportunity to provide. JP Morgan funded so many businesses and inventions that made America so wonderful. Things like the famous lightbulb would never have become such a big phenomenon if it wasn’t for Morgan. The lightbulb went onto become the company GE (general electric). Also Andrew Carnegie, at the time of his death, had given away 90% of his fortune to charity. Many of the other big men had also given away some of their earnings. Although some of these men did so much for America, some did not. Fisk and Gould are prime examples of robber barons. They scammed people out of a lot of money, and caused the 1873. Even Vanderbilt himself said “I have been insane on the subject of money making all of my life”. Him and many others were alway sin it for the money, even if they decided to give some back to appear better looking.
Lexie Seidel
Robber Barons or Captains of Industry
I believe that the economic leaders of this time were a mix of both robber barons and captains of industry. These leaders propelled us through industrialization by providing thousands of jobs and a thriving economy, but they were ruthless at the same time. They took over small businesses to make them bigger or to reduce competition, lied and cheated their way for money, and paid little to give them a bigger profit. People like Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller are Captains of Industry because they helped build the American lifestyle and future more than hurting it. These three Captains of Industry helped build the American economy into something strong and powerful. The economic leaders of this time expanded many industries and refined how we used our resources as well as how efficiently we made everyday goods from them. Even though these helpful and productive advances were good, there was a rapidly increasing gap between the upper and lower class, which caused a horrible depression in 1873. Some of these economic leaders would trick people into investing into a fake stock or company, buy out as many companies as they could, or outsell companies. Though these actions were ruthless and vindictive, these companies helped many immigrants and lower classed Americans to get jobs and people like Carnegie and Vanderbilt would give their money away to start universities, institutes, libraries, or other services. Therefore, I believe that these economic leaders could be supported by both schools and were both Robber Barons and Captains of Industry.
the 20th century was a combination of the Robber Barons and Captains of Industry. On one hand, the capitalists of that time were ruthless. They could definitely be seen as Robber Barons because they would do anything to earn a quick buck. Fisk and Gould sent the United States economy into a panic and inflated the National currency. People who ran factories thought it was okay to make other people work in sweatshops with terrible conditions just because they were making money. Additionally, railroad mangers earned all their money from investments and stocks. Those forms of income didn’t work out very often, causing more economic panics and uproar. On the other hand, businessmen set up the foundation of America’s current industries. If people had not suffered back in the 20th century, we would not be where we are today. Although the people running the businesses were very flawed and could have changed the way they ran things, they could be seen as Captains of Industry because they kept prices low, and pushed America into the industrial age. Without push toward industrialism, America could still be an agriculture-based economy. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve came out of all the horrible things that happened when J.P. Morgan died.
There were pros and cons to every situation that happened in this time period. While awful things did happen with the economy and with working conditions, people learned from their mistakes and used it to help America grow instead of letting these situations knock them off their feet.
The late 19th century cannot be described as a time composed of just robber barons or just captains of industry; in my opinion it was not an either-or situation. There were two extremes, the robber barons and captains of industry, and they existed in the same time period, but not really mixing. That era was filled with selfish money-grubbing people who thrived off of the poor, and criminals who corrupted the gold market and railroads. But there were also wealthy men who were living the American dream and donated a great deal of their fortune to schooling and other causes. It was a pendulum swing that went back and forth from robber baron to captains of industry, but there was no middle. Men like Jim Fisk and Jay Gould were classified as robber barons due to their attempt to buy all of the gold in the United States (which was unsuccessful). A key person who added to the reputation of robber barons was Jay Cooke, who caused the Panic of 1873. Cooke bought the Northern Pacific Railroad so he could sell the land near it; the problem was the land sucked. So to sell the land, Cooke hired men to create advertisements about how great the land was; this over speculation of land led to the Panic of 1873. On the other side of the pendulum were men like Andrew Carnegie, a man who was living the American dream — not necessarily rags to riches, more like lower middle class to riches. He earned millions and lived a life standard that a man should not die with his money. But was it really his money? Sure he was the owner of his steel factory but it was off the backs of the poor, hard-working class that he made his fortune. Yes, he did a wonderful thing by donating 90 percent of his wealth for the cause of education and other things, but was it really his money to give?
During the Gilded Age, the industrial leaders were considered to be Robber Barons and Captains of Industry, not one or the other. Robber Barons was a term used against people like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, and much more. They were seen as ruthless, cruel, and vindictive because they drove out other businesses and had terrible working conditions. For example, during the Erie Railroad Wars, Vanderbilt bought shares of the Erie Railroad Co. to drive out his competitors, so he would be the only one left in the business. A great example of true Robber Barons was Jim Fisk and James Gould. These men committed illegal crimes by messing with the stock market during the time period. They created fake shares in the market, and tricked businessmen like Vanderbilt into buying them. On the other hand, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt, and many others were considered heroes for fulfilling the American Dream. They changed the nation from an agricultural society into an industrial society. These men were known as Captains of Industry. For example, President Cleveland asked J.P. Morgan to bail out the United States Government from bankruptcy. President Roosevelt did the same thing in 1907. He helped out both times. All of the Captains of industry created jobs and economic success. It introduced Capitalism to the nation. Andrew Carnegie was the man of steel, and used the Bessemer process to expand his industry. J.P. Morgan invested in Edison’s light bulb, which was an enormous step for the society. In the end, these men were more Captains of Industry rather than Robber Barons because of all that they contributed to the country and the society.
I think that the men of this time period were a combination of the two. Both arguments have solid points that are both logical and true. For example, Carnegie created the greatly-exaggerated steel cities. They were rumored to be beautiful places where people could live while making a living in steel production. But once people found out that Carnegie’s cities weren’t all that, plus the horrible working conditions and pay in his mills, he got a bad name. Its not like Carnegie was all bad though. Over the course of his career, he kept his money in constant circulation, rather than hoarding it all for himself like other rich people. He gave to various foundations, and gave away 350 million of the 400 million he received from JP Morgan for his steel cities. For these contrasting reasons, its hard to confidently to pin one name on him. JP Morgan is another excellent example. He would invest and loan his money to filing businesses, saving them if you will. By doing this, he was helping the economy by not letting countless businesses fail. But he wasn’t just doing it out of the kindness of his heart. Along with help the businesses out, he’d negotiate a deal where he’d get to put his men on the board of directors. This gave him lasting power over these businesses, and obviously money. But even with all of the money he was acquiring, he never took advantage of the economy. He could’ve easily taken all the money for himself, and left the country out to die (economically). That was never his motive though. He was responsible with his power, but wasn’t shy in how he got it. So yet again, just like Carnegie, I can’t say he’ s some malicious man out to take over the world. Yes, both Carnegie and Morgan used sketchy method to get money, like pools and trusts, not to mention crushing other businesses to get ahead. But along with this they helped pay off national debt (Morgan), kept the economy afloat, and created jobs for the ever growing American population.
I think that the 19th Century industrialists were robber barons and captains of industry. I think that they were robber barons because the people who worked in their factories often had poor working conditions and didn’t make a lot of money. Even though Andrew Carnegie supported unions, he didn’t treat his factory workers fairly. His factories often were in very poor condition, they were dangerous and workers would sometimes be injured by machines. I think that Andrew Carnegie was a robber baron and a captain of industry because even though he changed the way steel was made, he could have treated his workers better since he had so much money. I think that they were also captains of industry because they didn’t charge a lot of money for their products and they also helped the world and American economy. I think that these industrialists were captains of industry because they kept the prices of their products affordable even though they had monopolies and could have raised them. Another example of why I think they were also captains of industry is because even though they had a lot of power and controlled a lot of the American economy, or even world economy like J.P. Morgan, they never did anything to destroy it. J.P. Morgan actually saved the American economy twice so I think that makes him more of a captain of industry. I think they were also captains of industry because they weren’t scamming people like Jim Fisk, Jay Gould, and Jay Cooke. I think that the 19th Century industrialists were both robber barons and captains of industry because there were things that they could have done better but also, some of them did good things for the country.
I believe that both robber barons and captains of industry fit the time period best because there wasn’t all good or all bad happening. There was, however, a combination of both good and bad. Some of the good aspects of these people could very well include the new businesses that were being brought up throughout this time period. These new businesses then provided jobs for unemployed people and they had the opportunity to have these jobs as some of the few they could get. Also, some people such as Rockefeller pretty much bought their entire industry so that they wouldn’t have any competition for their businesses. This could help out many people with jobs and such, but it could also hurt many people. With such large growing business, there wasn’t much concern on how the factories were run or the safety of them because they business owner was just interested in profit at that point. This would should the robber barons of the time. Although it may not have been conscious decisions to be a robber baron, some industrialists were so focused on the money that they couldn’t see what was happening elsewhere except for where the money was coming in. For example however, Rockefeller fired Fisk right after he had been brutally attacked and didn’t really care for his well being at all. Also, when Rockefeller had a large competitor, he spread many rumors about that person to try to make him look better just because his business was threatened even though he had enough money to live off of for the rest of his life. Therefore, during this time period, I don’t think that people were mostly robber barons or captains of industry, I think there was a fair mix of both all around because nothing was predominately good or bad.
I think industrialists are both. They are vicious, cruel, and manipulative yet they have also done a lot to help the American Dream. There are people like J.P. Morgan who would buy out failing companies, just to put them back together. While this seems bad, it’s actually very good. The company would stop suffering and go back to making money. Workers would get paid and then they would buy other products thus helping to improve the American economy. One example that shows the yin- yang of industrialists is Thomas Edison and the battle over electricity. J.P. Morgan wanted to get on the map by supporting a new idea. He chose Edison and the electric light bulb. After debuting this new technology, everyone wanted their homes powered by electricity. This would cause a problem for Rockefeller, whose business was in oil lamps. Edison’s invention would push the world into the modern age, but it would also crush Rockefeller’s business into the ground. Shortly after everyone came on board with electricity, Nikola Tesla created a competing idea. He came up with a new higher voltage alternating current. Soon both companies are fighting for the people’s money and business. Now it’s all fun and games till someone loses an eye. J.P. Morgan did not like it that he was losing business, so he told Edison to do whatever he could to stop alternating current, which is what he did. Edison would show the dangers of alternating current by killing animals, such as an elephant. This was the dark side to industry, where J.P. Morgan would do anything to crush the competition. But the bright side to all of this is the fact that great progress was made in electricity. Even when there’s good, there’s always bad. There is black and white, but also a whole lot of gray.
When you really look at it, every story has two sides to it. It is no different in the case of the robber barons versus captains of industry debate. In the more negative aspect, the major industrialists were seen as tyrants who dominated the American economy, lowing the average wage and worsening average working conditions. The other, much more positive side, shows these men as innovators who made America into what it is today. Both are at least somewhat accurate. There are examples of people who only fall into one category, such as Jim Fisk and Jay Gould, who were only out to make money at any cost by cornering the gold market. The majority, and the ones people most remember, were a bit of both. Take John Rockefeller for example. He could be considered a business tyrant as he created a monopoly on oil without it actually being a monopoly as Standard Oil was considered a trust, which was legal. In many cases, he would buy out his competition, or simply make it impossible for them to compete with him. By that I mean he would take a small oil company that did not want to sell, then buy up all the oil barrels, so that this small company could not package their oil, and would eventually be forced into selling to Rockefeller or going bankrupt. Now on the other side of things, Rockefeller, having cornered the market on oil, could have jacked up the prices, which would have benefited him tremendously. Instead, he kept prices low, improving the American economy. The price of oil actually dropped by about eighty percent during Standard Oil’s life time. This sort of two-faced workings were very common, as Carnegie, Morgan, and Vanderbilt, to name a few, all followed the same practice. This shows that a combination of the robber baron and captain of industry mindsets was what actually occurred in this time period, and is what best describes it.
Industrialists in the 19th century cannot fit into the Robber Baron nor Captain of Industry label because they are a collection of both. This topic is similar to a discussion we had in class on whether companies have the consumers best interest in mind, and I stand by my side in that discussion because it can go either way. Some people in that time period were Robber Barons such as Fisk and Gould, who made a fortune by ruining the rest of the country’s economy. These men did this by selling over priced railroad supplies at a time when they were needed the most. The government was “unaware” of this fraud and so Fisk and Gould got away with it for a long time, at the tax-payers expense. Fisk and Gould may have been definite Robber Barons, but they did not make up the majority of the country at that time. In fact, many were the opposite such as Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie was the steel king who made major bank and was one of the richest in his industry. He was the definition of a self made man stuck to his morals even after his big success. Before his death he even gave away the majority of his riches which is why he earned his title of a philanthropist and a Captain of Industry. Fisk, Gould and Carnegie are just a few of the industrialists who made the 19th century, and the reason others of this time can not be restrained to only Robber Barons or Captains of Industry, but a combination of both.
I believe that in this time the leaders of the industry were also robber barons. I believe this because as people I think they were deceiving and conniving men, but in a way they needed that in order to make it to the top. They had to out do all their competition and be smarter and think faster and get things done in a different way that no one has seen before. In this process they employed many lower class people that needed jobs so it benefited them but they also didn’t treat them with much respect. But only they had the power to make the industry. Yes inventors had amazing breakthrough ideas but if these captains of industry didn’t like it they were nothing. They needed them to invest their money in it, which also made all the inventors be able to keep themselves a float. They weren’t always nice though and they really only looked out for themselves and their own well-being. They kept tons of their money while the poor class was suffering with little to none and in addition they had to pay taxes while many of the captains didn’t. Only a handful of the wealthy leaders gave back to the people and looked out for the many below them. Much like Andrew Carnegie and how he donated a lot of his money to charity and to people he knew needed help desperately. All in all we could point out a million things they did to help themselves but only a few to help society. So overall these millionaires that were in control of the industry at the time were almost all robber barons.
I believe that Captain of Industry and Robber Barons best fit this time period and that the creators of the second Industrial Revolution, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan, are great examples of economic leaders who are a combo of Robber Barons and Captain of Industry. For example, Carnegie was born a common man who climbed his way up the social ladder to achieve greatness. Although his working conditions were poor and the wages were low, he still had morals. He lived by his “Gospel of Wealth” which meant that a man who was rich should not die rich so after his retirement he gave away 90% of his earnings which went towards many benevolent causes. John Rockefeller is also a good example of this combo. Rockefeller took over many small business’ in order to maintain his own and like Carnegie, made his own workers work in poor conditions with minimal wage. Then when Edison came out with the electric light bulb, funded by J. P. Morgan, he took away the use of Rockefeller’s oil. This outraged Rockefeller causing him to print articles about how dangerous electric light bulbs were just to stay in business. He was also the only economic leader to not have installed Edison’s invention. This is the same drive that also made Rockefeller a Captain of Industry. Rockefeller was headstrong and because of people like him, exemplified the best of capitalism. J. P. Morgan was probably more of a Captain of Industry than the other three. Morgan was a very powerful leader that held America’s economy in the palm of his hand. Instead of corrupting and damaging our economy, he instead helped it grow. Although it may seem that Captain of Industry better describes the time period, Morgan was also in fact a Robber Baron. After Edison’s light bulb invention and the use of direct current, indirect current was made making itself a possible threat to Edison and Morgan. Morgan put Edison up to trashing indirect current and telling the public how dangerous it was to get rid of the competition that would potentially destroy him. This proves that Robber Barons and Captain of Industry go hand and hand and best describes this time period.
I think that the economic leaders were both Robber Barons and Captains of Industry. People did what they had to do to make money. Some people came by their wealth honestly, while others had to scam and cheat their way to fortune. Though there were people making money, they did not all go about it in a genuine way. People like Jim Fisk and Jay Gould were examples of these Robber Barons who did not come by their wealth honestly. Those two tried to corner the gold market, yet it all backfired on them when the investors backed out. The Robber Barons were not looking to help out the country as much as they wanted money for themselves. Even though some industrialists were focused mostly on their self-gain, some were focused on helping the American economy, for example, selling goods at affordable prices, or offering wages that would actually help people not hurt them. But not everyone from this time period lied and cheated to get where they ended up. The Captains of Industry, like Carnegie and J.P. Morgan, worked hard for their earnings and didn’t have to scam people to become wealthy. These Captains of Industry were a driving force behind the success in America’s economy. They made choices that would benefit America and didn’t look solely on gaining more money for themselves. Because the economy was built upon both the sneaky Robber Barons and successful Captains of Industry, I believe that they both express and portray that time period. It would not be fair to choose just one side, either good or bad, when there’s two sides to this story.
In society during the Gilded Age, it was impossible to become a Captain of Industry without taking on at least some of the traits of a Robber Baron. The entire difference between Captain’s and Baron’s is about perception. Depending on your viewpoint the same actions taken by the same man could be construed as morally right or wrong. The American Dream is defined by the Google Dictionary as “the ideal that every US citizen should have an equal opportunity to achieve success and prosperity through hard work, determination, and initiative”. Captains of Industry are seen as the embodiment this dream. However America’s own capitalist system brings in an amount of intense competition that makes it so the traits of the American Dream cannot be upheld while still succeeding. People like Rockefeller and Carnegie are listed, even in your own description, as both Captains of Industry and Robber Barons. They both dominated their individual industries and were ruthless enough to take out and keep out any competition. Still they kept their own empires making affordable products and kept the abuse of their monopolies to a minimum. Businessmen such as Rockefeller and Carnegie were forced to resort to more morally ambiguous methods to achieve. The two terms in many ways can be used interchangably; the actions of a corporation may contradict the more idealist views of the man running it. Robber Barons and Captains of Industry are just a way if labling a businessman as good or bad. No person is all good or all evil and businesses are run by people making there actions only that of human capability.
I think that This is most definitely a combo between the two. They made major improvements and inspired innovation. Society improved greatly and advancements in shipping and many other industries were improved greatly. They also formed the capitalist society. This is both good and bad for people today. One thing that Is concrete is that our lives would be very different if innovators at this time were not constantly thirsty for money and power. For example Edison and J.P Morgan were savage and only wanted to be at the top. They would demolish any type of competition and would do anything to keep others out of their territory. They didn’t care about who they had to step on in order to get their. But because of this we now have the light bulb and any other revolutionary ideas. One thing that can not b denied is that things got done by these men at his time But there were also negatives issues that came with this. Industrialists created a huge gap between the rich and he poor. in addition they didn’t care about their workers at all. They looked out for them selves and with that came overall improvements for mankind but at the time they were seen as cruel and savage. They did not pay their workers nearly as much as they were paying themselves and failed to provide them with proper working conditions. They only cared about making money and staying In charge of their large powerful industries.
I think that the leaders of industry in the late 19th century were robber barons and were BAD BAD BAD for America, and the world. I think this because they helped fuel materialism, and monotony and wage gaps in life today.
I think the robber barons fueled materialism because they could provide lots of cheap goods for the masses, which made people want more and more. I also think that they help fuel materialism because of how immensely rich they were. This wealth made them able to get anything and everything they desired. When people saw this and decided that they also wanted anything and everything, leading to materialism. This materialism is bad for America and the world because it puts physical things over people and other non-tangible things in life. Evidence in this is in the concept of getting rich quick. People were willing to do anything to gain money and other physical thing; they would cheat steal and lie if they had to, just like the robber barons. This necessity for money led to monotony and a wage gap in life today.
The robber barons in the late 19th century created monotony in life and a wage gap today because of their fixation on money and material objects. In order to gain more money, and subsequently material objects, many robber barons created factories with assembly lines and low wages. The assembly lines made a job terribly boring, and the low wages made the jobs necessary to eat and stay alive. The low wages also drastically broadened the wage gap, contributing to the need for low paying monotonous jobs that the low class could do in order to barely scrape by. Trapped in this system, the low class had focus on money in order to collect enough to buy food. The robber barons made life much more materialistic, fast paced, and monotonous.
I feel like this age was a fair share of robbers and barons and captains of industry. The occurrence of big business called for the second Industrial Revolution. It made household life so much simpler thanks to the captains of industry like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and JP Morgan. They made products affordable for the average American and even had them tested in their own homes like when JP Morgan had the direct current electricity powered in his own home. Morgan also took control over the stock of an astounding amount of railroads and didn’t become corrupt as the infamous Jay Gould and Jim Fisk. At the same time with the tremendous amount of profit that came in and along with the different competition their came a dark side to big business. When Tesla’s idea of the alternate current came around it made a monster out of Edison. He spread slander about Tesla’s invention being the kill current and killed innocent animals publicly. Even Rockefeller undermined Edison’s invention of electricity by burning down houses because he thought his oil refining companies were going to suffer. Rockefeller was seen as one of the biggest barrons at the time. He bought out all competing oil companies and was inspired by horizontal integration. Rockefeller then forced many workers into really harsh working conditions with long strenuous hours. Andrew Carnegie also was a rather hypocritical one. All his life he went by the Gospel of Wealth giving most of your earnings to help the less privileged and not die rich. He showed concern for many by creating the Carnegie Hall and many other institutions to promote peace, but still in his hometown many were poor and those that worked for him worked in filth, long hours, and had low wages. During the revolution Americans were happy in their household with the phonograph, camera, and light bulb but inside factories and big business was still dangerous.
During the late 19th century, both robber barons and captains of industry fit the description of the hyper-wealthy industrialists. They were captains of industry because they took out their competition so that they could produce their product for cheaper. This allowed the common man to afford the goods offered by them. Any business cannot grow to become as big as Carnegie’s, Rockefeller’s or Vanderbilt’s without pushing other businesses around and causing them to collapse. The downside to the rule of the robber barons was that the workers employed by the monopolies worked in poor and often hazardous conditions. In addition to this, they were paid very low wages. Taking this into consideration, I think it was not terrible that other companies were crushed. It is just business. The other companies knew that this was a possibility when they started up. For one to thrive, one must fall.
To many, it seemed as if the industrialists had too much power. One person could cause major destruction. Even though J.P Morgan did not take advantage of his power, someone else might have. They could have derailed the entire U.S. economy. This might make Morgan sound like Mother Theresa, but he was not. He took out his businesses competitors, just like Carnegie and Rockefeller. Morgan would buy out a company and make his prices so low that the other businesses could not match his prices. This forced them to either go bankrupt, or sell out to Morgan. This proves that the monopolists of the 1890’s were both forces for good and bad.
The economic leaders of the nineteenth century time period were the captains of industry. The best example of the captains was J.P. Morgan. He put his power to good use by bailing out the country twice from total disaster. He also used his power to innovate the country. Morgan invested in Thomas Edison’s idea of the light bulb that used direct currents and made it possible for the average American to light up their homes. J.D. Rockefeller donated approximately $500 million to various philanthropic causes. Henry Ford introduced the Model T and stated that, “I want to pay my workers so that they can afford my product.” He was the reason why Detroit was the top third city during that time period. Henry Ford was a great example of how workers weren’t completely left out of the success of the business. Even though the leaders of these giant companies meant well back then, they didn’t always look out for the workers best interest while trying to keep prices low for consumers and profits high. As for the issue of monopoly, I believe that that wasn’t the Captains of the industries intentions. If it was they didn’t mean any harm. Captains of the industry such as Cornelius would be bought or buy out other companies to produce their own successful establishments in the booming industries. Less competition, which is a good marketing strategy, and quality was still great with low prices still available. These men weren’t evil, they were smart about their businesses and shaping the market to fit them. It’s kind of like survival of the fittest. I’m not saying it fits in today’s way of business but it worked for these men back then. The only reason that i can draw up to call them robber barons is that they had so much money that they could have possibly had political power to affect the economy but there is no evidence of them holding it back.