Robber Barons Case Study

Robber barons, famously known for their ruthless means of acquiring wealth back in the late nineteenth century. They were awful. They were complete menaces to society and only ever created wealth for themselves. Or, at least that 's what is commonly taught in high school American history classes, but author Burton Folsom Jr. offers an unique alternative perspective in his book, The Myth of the Robber Barons. He provides a closer look at the results achieved by these infamous robber barons to give insight into what actually happened in the wake of these entrepreneurs’ conducted business. Folsom uses seven chapters on separate industries ran by robber barons to show, at least from an overall economic view, The United States experienced a gross net benefit by the existence of robber barons.

During the post Civil War period many capitalists took over and ramped up industry. There were also individuals who took industries and monopolized them. Many historians who look back at these capitalists who shaped the post Civil War industry argue about whether they should be viewed as captains of industry who developed large industry, or as robber barons who used industry and monopolies to achieve wealth and take advantage of the working class. This essay will show why they were captains of industry.

After the end of the Civil War, industrialization and urbanization blossomed and changed the nation. Instead of presidential power, men were aiming to be industrial tycoons for their wealth and power. To the people, these capitalists were regarded as either admirable “captains of industry” or corrupt “robber barons”. Even though to some people they may seem like “captains of industry”, but they were actually corrupt “robber barons” for several reasons regarding corruption, employee issues, and matters of the social classes.

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

Weaver’s, “A Call to Action”, 1892 (Doc. E), he claims that monopolies use unethical business practices to eliminate competition and postpone the trade of other goods and services. James B. Weaver confirms his statement by informing his target audience of the ‘Oatmeal Trust’ in 1887. The purpose of the article was to confirm with evidence that trusts were an indirect form of monopolies that were against government regulations. The article also confirms that monopolies used trusts to make more money by assuring that the production of their goods was inexpensive and that they reduced the prices of their goods to decrease the competition the amount of competition. For example, James B. Weaver states, “It is clear that trusts are contrary to public policy and hence in conflict with the common law.

Ralph W. Hidey and Muriel E. Hidey disagreed with Josephson. In the book Taking Sides, They believe that John D. Rockefeller and his associates created and applied a system for operating a large integrated industrial enterprise, which was one of the earliest representatives of Big Business. He contributed to the development of American petroleum industry and through it to the growth of the economy.

Rockefeller was obsessed with controlling the oil market and used many of undesirable tactics to flush his competitors out of the market. Rockefeller was also a master of the rebate game. He was one of the most dominant controllers of the railroads. He was so good at the rebate that at some times he skillfully commanded the railroad to pay rebates to his standard oil company on the traffic of other competitors. He was able to do this because his oil traffic was so high that he could make or break a section of a railroad a railroad company by simply not running his oil on their lines. Another one of Rockefellers earlier mentioned but not explained tactics was his horizontally integrated monopoly. Rockefeller used this horizontal monopoly to set prices and force his competitors to merge with him. (All with Doc. J) Document J shows that Rockefeller had his tentacles, or his influence and power around every piece of the oil industry. That, also, includes the politicians and their support.

No wonder that only a handful of people can’t distinguish that this old man was a crock and deserves to rot in hell! With all this positive media attention, the public had been fed lies! In real life, this money hungry, greedy villain is the prime reason why the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed. Rockefeller’s dream was to monopolize the oiling industry, and he so successfully did. Because of his great empire (the Standard Oil Co.)

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.

By establishing these set shipping rates with the railroad companies, it not only made it impossible for his competitors to stay in business, but it also allowed Rockefeller to establish a strong relationship with a key method of transportation for shipping products (Biography). By establishing a strong relationship with the railroad companies, Rockefeller was able to use his successful business practice to “control over 90 percent of the nation’s oil-refining industry by 1880” (The New Tycoons). As time continued on and his business became more successful, he also applied another clever business strategy known as vertical integration. This process consisted of a company purchasing and controlling each and every step of one’s industry production process. Rockefeller’s company used this process very efficiently as they “became known to manipulate crude oil prices to drive refineries to bankruptcy, allowing him to buy them cheaply” (Epstein). By controlling each production step, he was able to minimize costs by removing any companies from the middle that were previously completing steps on the way to the finish product. Rockefeller was also known to manipulate prices of crude oil in order to drive his competing refineries into bankruptcy which allowed him to buy them cheaply (Epstein). However, his economic beliefs and ideas were not the only strategies which John Rockefeller used to elevate his business and personal profile to a national level and

For two years, Tarbell looked through public records, state and federal reports, and court cases to figure out what Rockefeller’s tactics were when building the Standard Oil Company. Tarbell used this information to write a popular 19-part series called “The History of the Standard Oil Company” that was published between November 1902 and October 1904. Even though she did not like what Rockefeller did, she still managed to mention that

He was also described as very noble and straightforward. He would never lie about the quality of an automobile. He always believed in giving customers good deals. He made that belief popular in the workplace, and would make sure no employee would give someone a bad deal. This would attract customers and gain their loyalty, he was mainly the businessman of the two brothers.

With reference to the levels and spheres of corporate power discussed in the chapter, how did the power of Standard Oil change society? Was this power exercised in keeping with the social contract of Rockefeller’s era? Corporate actions have effected society on two levels, on the surface level and deep level. On a surface level, business power can impact changes in the society, especially when corporations fire and hire employees or make and sell products.

The monopoly of oil created by Rockefeller caused smaller business to go out of business or make it very unprofitable for them to function. The regular oil companies could not compete with the Standard Oil Company, for they were trying to put smaller companies out of business. Rockefeller joined with competing companies in trust agreements. Participants in a trust turned their stock over to a group of trustees. This made it so you either had to join the bigger company or stop selling oil because it would not be profitable. The first hand account of this happening shows the negative effects to big businesses. How could a business survive when it is being attacked by a monopoly that was formed illegally? The Sherman Antitrust Act made this illegal. The large businesses forming monopolies would say this is the point of capitalism. They can sell their better product for whatever they want. Is it really illegal to undercut prices, but it is morally wrong to do. Unfortunately the owners of the monopolies did not care about others they only cared about themselves. Overall the monopolies formed by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Pullman were very beneficial to themselves, but to no one else that wasn’t making money. The next document is about how Carnegie feels about giving money away. Carnegie claims that to be rich you must show that you are rich. You must have shunning displays that show wealth. People have to look up to you for answers. People have to want to be you and they must