The Myth Of The Robber Barons Summary

James Buchanan Duke was a tobacco and electric power industrialist in the mid-1800s and early 1900s. Duke would not be considered a robber baron due to the fact that he took advantage of the opportunity to sell his own tobacco after the Civil War was over and the tobacco business wasn’t thriving. He also did so without being evil or dishonest.

In this chapter, Howard Zinn focuses on the robber barons and rebels of the 19th century. Robber Barons were businessmen who often earned their wealth in dishonest and greedy ways. Favorable laws were made by the government towards the robber barons. The government helped the rich and didn’t care much for the lower class. Great fortune was made on the transcontinental railroad and the oil industry. Both of these companies treated their workers poorly and paid them low wages. Corporations became very powerful by creating monopolies “A system in which one corporation controls all or most of an industry”(173 Zinn). Politicians came up with the idea of communism and socialism, economic systems that would benefit the poor. The Sherman Anti-Trust

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.

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.

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.

Historian A views the entrepreneurs as “robber barons” and as men who greedily took advantage of the American workers. He describes them as ruthless and single-minded; he accuses them of threatening the humane and democratic values that made America great. He is essentially saying that the entrepreneurs are ruining America and its core

     “By 1900, the transformation of the American economy from agricultural to industrial was in full swing, as the nation of farmers and artisans was giving way tot hat of factory workers and manufacturing giants” (Wattenberg, 1998, p. 32). Coinciding with this transformation, an atmosphere conducive to entrepreneurship allowed single families to dominate individual industries, giving rise to the so-called “trusts”. As icons in American business, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Cornelius Vanderbilt were perceived as the enemy of the working class. Bertrand Russell, a well known British philosopher said in a interview with Life

Rockefeller (1839–1937) was a Gilded Age industrialist and the founder of Standard Oil. Rockefeller's strategy of establishing a virtual monopoly over one aspect of the production process—in his case, oil refining—was labeled horizontal integration. To eliminate his competitors, Rockefeller used his firm's superior size to negotiate preferential rates from the railroads that transported both his and his competitors' oil, making it nearly impossible for his competitors to stay in business. “I sought for the reason and found that the railroads were in league with the Standard Oil concern at every point, giving it discriminating rates and privileges of all kinds as against myself and all outside competitors” (Doc. H). This evidence shows how monopolists used ruthless tactics to put competitors out of business.

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.

     True, Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller may have been the most influential businessmen of the 19th century, but was the way they conducted business proper? To fully answer this question, we must look at the following: First understand how Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller changed the market of their industries. Second, look at the similarities and differences in how both men achieved domination. Third and lastly, Look at how both men treated their workers and customers in order achieve the most possible profit for their company.

In the early nineteenth century the USA was very corrupt. It was a time were monopolistic businesses thrived, and small ones failed. In this time was when J.P. Morgan became the man controlling the most money in the world and ended up owning at his peak, forty companies. In the early nineteenth century J.P Morgan was both a Captain of industry and a Robber Baron.

Near the last decades of the 19th century, America’s industrial economy skyrocketed. As these industrial leaders like Carnegie and Rockefeller not only lead the expansion through their respective industries, but revolutionized businesses while crushing free-market competition in the process. As

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?