Robber Barons Analysis

Decent Essays
Truth be told, both authors made quite compelling arguments on both sides of the spectrum. However, Zinn made his argument more swaying, in my opinion. These nineteenth century entrepreneurs most definitely could be described as “robber barons.” I say this, in agreement with Zinn because of the fact that the owners of these corporations (namely Standard Oil and U.S. Steel) were able to monopolize the industrial revolution with government aids, as well. Let’s start with J.P. Morgan. Nothing gets more corrupt than the fact that Morgan purchased rifles for $3.50 from an army arsenal and then turned to a general to sell them for $22. Anything to make a quick buck, I guess. Now, back to the massive companies. These companies were able to make so much money by hiring outside (immigrant) labor for a fraction of what they would pay an American worker. They received government subsidies and were greatly benefitted by the tariffs…show more content…
He was able to cut his prices so low that his competitors could not stay in business. However, when they did go under, Rockefeller did invite them to join his conglomerate. After all competition was wiped away, he was then able to set a higher price, making much more money because of the sheer fact that there was no other competition. “If we did not sell out… we would be crushed out… There was only one buyer on the market and we had to sell at their terms,” says one independent oil refiner. Morgan and Rockefeller were, in fact, robber barons. The business tactics that they used made it nearly impossible for anyone to compete in the market. The fact that the federal government had their backs (though they claimed neutrality) is a clear sign that they controlled the vast majority of the wealth and power of the nation. Another fun fact is that Morgan alone sat on forty eight separate corporation’s boards followed by Rockefeller - who sat on thirty seven separate
Get Access