Robber barons myth

During the 1880s: Rise of Entrepreneurs

During the 1880s, the American industry grew as a result of a number of causes, one of which was the rise of a young and sometimes ruthless group of entrepreneurs (Brinkley 396). People who support these entrepreneurs claim that they worked hard, innovated technologies, and strategized competitively to change the American economy. These philanthropists, such as Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J Pierpoint Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller, used their money to support their societies and should be recognized. John S. Gordon is a supporter of these entrepreneurs. As an expert on business and financial history, Gordon claims these Captains of Industry improved the American lifestyle in his book An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power. Believing in a laissez-faire government, Gordon remained skeptical of government restrictions on any competition (John S. Gordon).

Contrasting Views: Captains of Industry vs. Robber Barons

To the contrary, those against these entrepreneurs thought that these men were cruel and self-centered "Robber Barons" who took advantage of their workers (Captains of Industry). As a Socialist advocate for the underclass and a Marxist, Howard Zinn condemned capitalism; he believed that the corporate ruling class only benefited the wealthy. Both Zinn and Gordon categorized these big businessmen differently based on their beliefs. Although two people can look at the same pieces of information, those two people may have different perspectives, and therefore, see the same argument from two different sides.

The Turn of the Century: Masses vs. Corporate Elite

According to Howard Zinn, the year 1877 became the turn of the century: a line between the masses and the corporate elite was drawn with backing from the government. New technology had revolutionized the industry, the demand for labor had increased along with an increase in the supply of workers, and new corporations had been created with prominent people in business heading them. With prominent businessmen, such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, working with financers, such as J. Pierpoint Morgan, they improved the economy at the cost of the masses; to keep the government from interfering with their business, these men sold shares of their company to the Congressmen. According to Massachusetts Congressman Oakes Ames, "There is no difficulty in getting men to look after their property" (Folsom, 1991). Congress passed high tariffs to ensure products made by the corporations they owned were used and bought by the masses and competition was eliminated. For example, prominent businessmen like Rockefeller used monopolies to eliminate his competition as well; not only did he control the oil industry with vertical and horizontal integration, but he also, secretly, partnered with the railroad industry to gain rebates for transporting his oil. By doing so, Rockefeller either bought his competition out or destroyed them.

Interlocking Networks of Power: Big Business Collaboration

In addition to crushing out their competition, these big businessmen and bankers partnered to create "interlocking networks of powerful corporation directors, each of whom sat on many boards of other organizations" (Folsom, 1991). Combining their efforts made these men wealthier and more powerful. Although the national government implemented regulations that seemed neutral between the masses and big business, Zinn believed that these provisions were never enforced and ignored for the sake of the elite. While Zinn acknowledges the philanthropy of some prominent businessmen, he also claims that these men invested their money back into their communities merely to train the masses to continue corporate traditions. Joel Spring claims, "The development of the factory-like system in the nineteenth-century classroom was not accidental" (Folsom, 1991). Zinn wants his audience to believe that corporations, as well as the government, conspires against the masses to continue a capitalist America that only benefits the wealthy and takes advantage of the people. To end the control of the citizens through corporations, America must transform into a Socialist society.

A Different Perspective: The Positive Impact of Big Business

To the contrary, John S. Gordon challenges Howard Zinn's view of prominent people in the business. The business of big business did not exist because the federal government acted as "an active referee" (Folsom, 1991). Corporations benefited not only their stockholders but also society as a whole; monopolies, such as Standard Oil, were broken up into smaller, separate companies because it restricted trade and hurt society. However, many corporations benefited society. The new processes, such as the Bessemer process, revolutionized the industry. These innovations gave America a competitive edge that helped win wars and earn global leadership. While Zinn believed that corporations formed mergers and monopolies to maximize their profits at the cost of the masses, Gordon felt that these mergers and monopolies helped businesses offer the best, competitive prices for the people. Gordon states, "It is simply a myth that patents will raise prices once they have the power to do so... Lower prices, which increase demand, and greater efficiency, which cuts costs, are usually the best way to achieve the highest possible profits" (Folsom, 1991). Monopolies did not merely work in the best interest of themselves; they worked to find the best for their consumers.

Acknowledging the Dark Side: Robber Barons and Worker Exploitation

However, Gordon acknowledges that these big businessmen did act like robber barons when their competition was involved. Not only did they acquire the largest abatements from railroads, but they also encouraged railroads to deny rebates to companies that they wished to control; in addition to reimbursement denials, the robber barons either drove their competition to bankruptcy or bought them out, but at a "fair" price (Folsom, 1991). Overall, these businessmen created a new economy that moved too fast for the laws that governed it to keep up. Gordon paints a positive picture of the captains of industry. But he, however, neglects the history of the workers and their misfortunes within these corporations. He insists that America remains a capitalist nation because it sets the country apart from others and gives it a leadership role in the global economy.

Conclusion: Different Perspectives and Manipulation of Facts

Overall, Howard Zinn and John S. Gordon interpret the events of the 1800s entirely differently. Both present strong arguments using facts; However, Zinn's use of statistics makes his case slightly stronger. To the contrary, both manipulate the facts to support their agendas, which imposes a weakness in their writing styles. A balanced discussion offers both perspectives on one topic so that the reader can make his or her inferences. Zinn's argument screams socialism; while he bashes big business for the sake of the people, he barely refers to the cruel endeavors of the workers. Zinn could have made his argument stronger by referring less to government-corporate relationships and more to worker-corporate relationships. He, also, refuses to see any good in the robber barons' philanthropy. Similarly, Gordon refuses to acknowledge the effect of large firms on the workers in its entirety. However, he does show the opposition's perspective in his article when he refers to the corporate-competition relationship. With that being said, one can infer that not one author is correct in his opinion of the prominent businessmen; big business was cruel and kind through their philanthropist efforts.

💡Helpful info: Ace your economics assignments! Economics essay writers are ready to elevate your academic success – order today and boost your grades!

References

Folsom, B. W. (1991). The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America. Young Americas Foundation.