Philanthropy Of The Robber Baron

A Review of The Myth of the Robber Barons a book by Burton Folsom JR.

As young as 33, Carnegie was pulling in an annual income of $50,000 a year, a huge amount at that time, and this was enough for him. Carnegie was a firm believer that anyone could make it to the top, and that it was the wealthys’ duty to help the poor work towards a more comfortable life. Carnegie said that “the man who dies rich, dies disgraced.” This is a greedy, unselfish philosophy that a robber baron could not conceive.

During the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, both robber barons and captains of industry were terms used to place businessmen into a good or bad category. The term robber baron is a representation of industrialist who used manipulative methods in order to reach enormous quantities of wealth. Some characteristics of robber barons were: they depleted America of its valuable resources, forced authority to pass laws that would work in there favor, make opponents in the industry go out of business, and force laborers to work in hazardous circumstances with little pay. The term captains of industry meant the exact opposite, these businessmen did positive things in order to reach enormous quantities of wealth. Some characteristics of captains of industry were: they constructed factories to make the accessibility of goods rise, increased production, developed markets, gave to charity, and created more jobs with generous pay. While many historians believe that the industrialist of the 19th century were captains of industry there are others that would object and say that they were indeed robber barons. Would you consider the great industrialist of the 19th century to be robber barons or would you consider them as captains of the industry?

In a book published in 1991 by Burt Folsom, The Myth of the Robber Barons is essentially a book about two theories competing against one another, which is the political versus the market entrepreneurs. The book adamantly persuades the reader into believing market entrepreneurship has provided Americans with greater results versus political entrepreneurs featuring from real life scenarios to back up Mr. Folsom claims. He pointed out several market entrepreneurs in his book such as J.D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, James Hill and Charles Schwab as ones who helped changed the economic climate for Americans by providing superior and lower-cost products and/or services than its competitors. Mr. Folsom continued to shine light on several political

Perhaps the most controversial of Andrew Carnegie’s qualities is his belief in Social Darwinism. The English philosopher Herbert Spencer convinced Carnegie that it wasn’t bad to be successful. It was “survival of the fittest” in the business world and there was no reason for Andrew Carnegie to feel guilty for obtaining more wealth. Throughout Carnegie’s life, he displayed his firm belief in the certainty of competition. In fact, he was afraid of competition and did all he could to obstruct or completely remove it when it came to his

From 1865 to 1900, a surge in industry and business began to come into effect. Railroads, oil, steel, and various inventions enabled the rise of these businesses. As time went on, the leaders of the businesses would become more eager to achieve wealth. Some historians have described these people as ‘robber barons’ or people who use extreme methods to control and maintain their wealth and power. Others would chastise that belief, declaring that it is an unjust conclusion to draw. Despite the oppositions fervent belief, the undeniable evidence supports the belief that many of the businessmen in the late 19th century were ‘robber barons’. These men had a blatant disregard for human lives and an unquenchable urge to assume control over citizens’ lives that instilled corruption and greed in them.

A "robber baron" was someone who employed any means necessary to enrich themselves at the expense of their competitors. Did John D. Rockefeller fall into that category or was he one of the "captains of industry", whose shrewd and innovative leadership brought order out of industrial chaos and generated great fortunes that enriched the public welfare through the workings of various philanthropic agencies that these leaders established? In the early 1860s Rockefeller was the founder of the Standard Oil Company, who came to epitomize both the success and excess of corporate capitalism. His company was based in northwestern Pennsylvania.

When the names Carnagie, Rockefeller, and Pullman come to mind, most of us automatically think of what we saw or read in our history books: "These men were kind and generous and through hard work and perseverance, any one of you could become a success story like them," right? Wrong. I am sick of these people being remembered for the two or three "good deeds" they have done. Publicity and media have exaggerated the generosity of these men, the government has spoiled these names with false lies, and people have been blind to see that these men were ruthless, sly businessmen who were motivated by your money and their struggle for power.

Throughout American industrialization, large industries were run by some of the richest men in history. These men got the nickname “robber barons” due to their creation of large monopolies by making questionable business and government activities, and by taking advantage of their workers to succeed. But in The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton W. Folsom, he argues against these claims, and he takes a deeper look into some of America’s richest and most successful men. By specifically looking at Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, the Scranton family and many more, Folsom believed that these so-called robber barons were actually entrepreneurs with a drive to succeed, leading to an improvement in American lives.

Andre Carnegie was a poor immigrant who came to the United States in a quest for the realization of the American Dream. A self-started entrepreneur who through hard work and by taking advantage of the right opportunities was able to develop an enormous wealth, signifying with it, the definite possibility of social mobility. In his essay “Wealth” of 1989 Carnegie refers to the importance of the distribution of wealth and how such fortune was there to be used by the rich for the benefit and well-being of all individuals of society. Throughout this essay I will be explaining the arguments for the redistribution of wealth made by Carnegie, while analyzing as well the factors that may have motivated him to write his famous essay “Wealth.”

In his article “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues for the wealth to give back their wealth to the community by providing “public institutions of various kinds … [to] improve the general condition of the people” (Foner 30). Carnegie uses this article to promote his Gospel of Wealth idea and provide his interpretation of the changing America. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth stated that “those who accumulated money had an obligation to use it to promote the advancement of society” (Foner 28). Carnegie’s articles focuses on the themes of Capitalism and Inequality, which continue to shape society.

Social bandits, first designated as such in 1959 by social historian Eric Hobsbawm, have a long and colorful history in both folk traditions and real world events. The historical archetype of the social bandit is one of many contradictions: he calls into question the nature of the authoritative bodies by defying them, the justness of laws by breaking them, and the definition of right and wrong in a given cultural context by committing seemingly immoral acts for the benefit of the community at large. Additionally, the prototypical Hobsbawmian figure must meet a stringent list of qualifications to be thus termed: the bandit must participate in thievery or other illegal acts which are circumstantially seen as other than common criminality by

“As the growth of industrial development increased so did the accumulation of massive industries and corporations”. This had changed The United States of America into being urbanized instead of being a rural area. Then many businessmen like Andrew Carnegie, John D Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt had big industrial tycoons which had a massive benefit for them and for their society because they had an increase in mass production which ultimately changed the face of the United States of America from being a rural society into being an urban society.

What was his secret? Is he to be placed on a pedestal for others as a "CAPTAIN OF INDUSTRY Or should he be demonized as a robber baron. A ROBBER BARON, by definition, Buster was an American capitalist at the turn of the 19th century who enriched himself upon the sweat of others, exploited natural resources, or possessed unfair government

Arthur Miller, a highly acclaimed and influential twentieth century dramatist, was born in New York City in 1915. Unlike normal Greek tragedies that focus on the aristocracy, Miller’s works often focus on the plight and tragedy of the common man. According to Rachel Galvin in an article for National Endowment for the Humanities, Miller generally illustrated characters that “wrestle with power conflicts, personal and social responsibility, the repercussions of past actions, and twin poles of guilt and hope” (Galvin). Some of his most famous modern tragedies include The Crucible, All My Sons, and Death of a Salesman. First staged in 1949, Death of a Salesman is considered Miller’s greatest and most