Summary Of The Robber Barons

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.

Capitalism can be defined as “when monetary wealth was enabled to buy labor power” (Wolf et al. 77). By the time that “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” was written, Capitalism was the dominant mode of production, and capitalist markets were spreading rapidly. This became especially true in the United States of America, which was heavily influenced by the British in matters of economy. Since capitalism was born in England, the influence of capitalism bled over into America while they were still under British rule (Wolf et al. 2670). However, by 1820, the year that “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” was published, the United States fully adopted the capitalist mode of production, along with the technological advances of the Industrial Revolution. This embrace of the new economic system changed the ways of life for people in both New England and New York, along with the entirety of the country.

While they were only getting richer with their corrupt methods, the poorer classes were getting poorer because of the money they spent on the capitalists’ goods. In “The Robber Barons of Today, 1889”, the robber barons are seen with their “knightly” attire while the poor pay “tribute” to them. (Doc D) It represents the poor paying the “amazing” capitalists and being subservient for the goods they need. Also, in Henry George’s Progress and Poverty, 1879, it said that the gulf between the classes is getting wider and wider. Because of the industrial tycoons taking the poor’s money, they are getting richer. They are also providing fewer jobs since the industries usually have one major company for a particular manufacturing, and so “the poorer class is becoming more dependent” on the capitalists to provide jobs and goods. (Doc A) The robber barons took the poor’s money to become wealthier and to feed their greed while worsening the gap between the social

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

In the conceptualization of the predominant 19th century political thought process, none- if any- were more influential than John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. Both were philosophers, sociologists, economists and political thinkers, but each held unique views towards the ideal government, to freedom, and to the impact of the industrial revolution. Each discussed some of the ramifications of the industrial revolution, and the ways in which the government can be re-aligned for greater social prosperity. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) advocated for Liberalism, a system in which liberty and equality would remain at the forefront of all political proposals, and representative interests. Mill celebrated individuality, and the ability to not conform to a higher power. In contrast to Mill, Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a revolutionary socialist who advocated for a complete social revolution throughout society, in an effort to counter the ill perceived effects of capitalism. Marx’s central tenet relied upon the fact that he sought to abolish private property, and monopolies, so as to enable all individuals to acquire an equitable means of living. Marx’s belief was that capitalism forces the economy into constantly being exploited, which in turn leads to recessions. Mill believed that all power should be allocated to the individual; whereas Marx believed that bestowing such power within a socialist regime would allow for the creation of a truly egalitarian society. This paper will analyze how

Carnegie, Rockefeller, and JP Morgan really are Robber barons because of what they have done to their workers including the conditions they were kept in. More evidence is that Andrew Carnegie is a Robber baron because he decreased his workers salary by 33% because his workers wanted coal and food in the winter. They asked for these things because they were starving and close to freezing to death, they needed help but they were too greedy to help them, but when they did help their workers they decreased salary or made them work longer to get the money back that they “wasted” on the workers who cared enough to help them in the beginning. But I have a couple extra examples to support my claim. J. P. Morgan is also a Robber Baron because of the

On February 9th, 1859, editor of the New York Times, Henry Raymond, pronounced something unusual about Cornelius Vanderbilt. Raymond disliked Vanderbilt, a steamship magnate with such an extensive convoy that he was commonly known as the Commodore, the highest position in the US Navy. In the article “Your Money of Your Line,” Raymond attacked Vanderbilt for stealing a substantial monthly payment from the Pacific Mail Steamship Company which was in exchange for Vanderbilt’s preceding antagonism on the sea lanes to California. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and Morgan fit into the concept of the Gilded Age because they all embody the ideas of robber barons or captains of industry. These individuals all helped to create the huge corporation

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.

Accurately established by many historians, the capitalists who shaped post-Civil War industrial America were regarded as corrupt “robber barons”. In a society in which there was a severe imbalance in the dynamics of the economy, these selfish individuals viewed this as an opportunity to advance in their financial status. Thus, they acquired fortunes for themselves while purposely overseeing the struggles of the people around them. Presented in Document A, “as liveried carriage appear; so do barefooted children”, proved to be a true description of life during the 19th century. In hopes of rebuilding America, the capitalists’ hunger for wealth only widened the gap between the rich and poor.

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.

Write a coherent essay that integrates your interpretation of Documents A–H and your knowledge of the period to answer the following question:

During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie had definite opinions about the affects of industrialization on society. A greater understanding of their views on history and humanity can be gained by comparing and contrasting two written artifacts: The Communist Manifesto and “Wealth.”

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.

The decades after the Civil War rapidly changed the face of the United States. The rapid industrialization of the nation changed us from generally agrarian to the top industrial power in the world. Business tycoons thrived during this time, forging great business empires with the use of trusts and pools. Farmers moved to the cities and into the factories, living off wages and changing the face of the workforce. This rapid industrialization created wide gaps in society, and the government, which had originally taken a hands off approach to business, was forced to step in.