More handpicked essays just for you.
Fundamental change in business during the gilded age
Changes in the gilded age
The gilded age: a tale of today summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The term “robber barons” originated from the turn of the twentieth century during the Gilded Age. The name “Gilded Age” was derived from Mark Twain’s novel, The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today, in which he portrayed American society as “gilded”, meaning that despite how fancy and luxurious it might have seemed on the surface, underneath the gild was actually a plethora of grave social issues that society refused to acknowledge. The title “robber baron” was a derogatory nickname meant to criticize the morals of businessmen who used immoral methods to gain immense wealth. It first appeared in The New York Times as early as February 9, 1859, where authors criticized the infamous business man Cornelius Vanderbilt for his unethical manner of achieving …show more content…
The captain of industries were businessmen who also benefitted society through their accumulation of wealth, using methods such as increased productivity, the expansion of markets, offering up new jobs to the working class, and other acts of generosity. All of the notable industrialists dubbed “robber barons” were also named “captain of industries” as well. Therefore, there have been many debates as to whether the term “robber barons” really did justice to the industrialists, when taking into account of their effects on America’s economy, and not just the negative aspects. While the robber barons did harm specific groups of people in order to meet their selfish goals, as well as execute ruthless tactics to surpass their competitors, they have also created an economic boom in which they created larger manufacturing companies, created many employment opportunities for the working class. Even though robber barons went to extreme measures and harmed others in their pursuit of wealth, they have also, and built a stable and prosperous …show more content…
Rockefeller was America’s first billionaire, and he was the true epitome of capitalism. Rockefeller was your typical rags-to-riches businessman, and at the turn of the twentieth century, while everyone else in the working class was earning ten dollars max every week, Rockefeller was earning millions. There has been much discussion as to whether Rockefeller’s success was due to being a “robber baron”, or as a “captain of industry”. By definition, a robber baron was an industrialist who exploited others in order to achieve personal wealth, however, Rockefeller’s effect on the economy and the lives of American citizens has been one of much impact, and deserves recognition. He introduced un-seen techniques that greatly modified the oil industry. During the mid-nineteenth century, there was a high demand for kerosene. In the refining process from transforming crude oil to kerosene, many wastes were produced. While others deemed the waste useless, Rockefeller turned it into income by selling them. He turned those wastes into objects that would be useful elsewhere, and in return, he amassed a large amount of wealth. He sold so much “waste” that railroad companies were desperate to be a part of his company. However, Rockefeller demanded rebates, or discounted rates, from the railroad companies, when they asked to be involved with his business. By doing so, Rockefeller was able to lower the price of oil to his customers, and pay low wages to his workers. Using these methods,
Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Vanderbilt all had something in common, they were all “Robber Barons,” whose actions would eventually lead to the corruption, greed, and economic problems of Corporate America today. During the late 19th century, these men did all they could to monopolize the railroad, petroleum, banking, and steel industries, profiting massively and gaining a lot personally, but not doing a whole lot for the common wealth. Many of the schemes and techniques that are used today to rob people of what is rightfully theirs, such as pensions, stocks, and even their jobs, were invented and used often by these four men.
During the late 1800's and early 1900's, change in American society was very evident in the economy. An extraordinary expansion of the industrial economy was taking place, presenting new forms of business organization and bringing trusts and holding companies into the national picture. The turn of the century is known as the "Great Merger Movement:" over two thousand corporations were "swallowed up" by one hundred and fifty giant holding companies.1 This powerful change in industry brought about controversy and was a source of social anxiety. How were people to deal with this great movement and understand the reasons behind the new advancements? Through the use of propaganda, the public was enlightened and the trusts were attacked. Muckraking, a term categorizing this type of journalism, began in 1903 and lasted until 1912. It uncovered the dirt of trusts and accurately voiced the public's alarm of this new form of industrial control. Ida Tarbell, a known muckraker, spearheaded this popular investigative movement.2 As a journalist, she produced one of the most detailed examinations of a monopolistic trust, The Standard Oil Company.3 Taking on a difficult responsibility and using her unique journalistic skills, Ida Tarbell was able to get to the bottom of a scheme that allowed the oil industry to be manipulated by a single man, John D. Rockefeller.
Robber Barons are known as ruthless capitalist or industrialist of the late 19th century, known to have gain wealthyness by exploiting natural resources, corrupting legislators, or other unethical means. The Myth of the Robber Barons is a book about the entrepreneurs Cornelius Vanderbilt, James J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, Johne D. Rockefeller, the Scranton family, and Charles Schwab. Many in todays sociaty would argure that these men were all robber barons, but this book gives us a hole new look in the history of these men and there lives and all they did for the rise in the U.S economic power.
John D. Rockefeller as a Robber Baron 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. A major question historians have disagreed on has been whether or not John D. Rockefeller was a so-called "robber baron".
What is a robber baron? Webster’s New Dictionary defines it as an American capitalist of the late 19th century who became wealthy through exploitation (As of natural resources, governmental influence, or low wage scales) or a person who satisfies himself by depriving another. In America we had a lot of these kind of people. For this report I am going to tell you about the ones that I found most interesting to me. I would first like to tell you about Cornelius Vanderbilt.
Many people consider Rockefeller a robber of industry because of his forcible ways of gaining his monopolies. Rockefeller was fond of buying out small and large competitors. If the competitors refused to sell they often found Rockefeller cutting the prices of his Standard Oil or in the worst cases, their factories mysteriously blowing up. 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 rail road 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...
Rockefeller was a Robber Baron for the simple reason that he was greedy and selfish. He has treated his workers horribly and did use his money for others. He used aggressive tactics to get to where he was.
Let us first look at Mr. Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie was a mogul in the steel industry. Carnegie developed a system known as the vertical integration. This method basically cut out the ‘middle man’. Carnegie bought his own iron and coal mines (which were necessities in producing steel) because purchasing these materials from independent companies cost too much and was insufficient for Carnegie’s empire. This hurt his competitors because they still had to pay for raw materials at much higher prices. Unlike Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller integrated his oil business from top to bottom. Rockefeller’s system was considered a ‘horizontal’ integration. This meant that he followed one product through all phases of the production process, i.e. Rockefeller had control over the oil from the moment it was drilled to the moment it was sold to the consu...
Based on the Gilded Age, literally meaning a layer of gold is displayed on the outside and once you look deeper past through the top layer of gold, you can identify that the robber barons are the culprit of the corruption in the government who monopolized the corporate America. Although, there is a great transition from the agricultural economy towards the rapid growth of the urban and industrial society, the robber barons created a lot of problems to much of the working class poor in America.
During the Gilded Age, several Americans emerged as leaders in many fields such as, railroads, oil drilling, manufacturing and banking. The characterization of these leaders as “robber barons” is, unfortunately, nearly always correct in every instance of business management at this time. Most, if not all, of these leaders had little regard for the public or laborers at all and advocated for the concentration of wealth within tight-knit groups of wealthy business owners.
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.
John D. Rockefeller, born on July 8, 1839, has had a huge impact on the course of American history, his reputation spanning from being a ruthless businessperson to a thoughtful philanthropist (Tarbell 41). He came from a family with not much and lived the American dream, rising to success through his own wit and cunning, riding on the backs of none. His legacy is huge, amassing the greatest private wealth of any American in history. Rockefeller’s influence on our country has been both a positive and a negative one, he donated huge sums of money to various public institutions and revolutionized the petroleum industry. Along with all the positives to the country, Rockefeller also had many negative affects as well, including, by gaining his riches by means of a monopoly, often using illegal methods, by giving others a reason to frown upon capitalism, and by hurting smaller businesses.
During the 1800’s, business leaders who built their affluence by stealing and bribing public officials to propose laws in their favor were known as “robber barons”. J.P. Morgan, a banker, financed the restructuring of railroads, insurance companies, and banks. In addition, Andrew Carnegie, the steel king, disliked monopolistic trusts. Nonetheless, ruthlessly destroying the businesses and lives of many people merely for personal profit; Carnegie attained a level of dominance and wealth never before seen in American history, but was only able to obtain this through acts that were dishonest and oftentimes, illicit.
More often than not, America’s antebellum capitalists are accused of being the “robber barons” of industrial America. The misconception is that these men took advantage of a naïve and growing economy and reaped its benefits without giving anything in return. True, the majority of America was poor in comparison to the few elites, but the philanthropist efforts and contributions of these men can not be denied. If not for these men and their efforts, there would have been no one to pave the road to America’s industrial domination.
The Second Industrial Revolution brought about many changes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While there was much prosperity, it was unequally distributed among the lower, middle, and upper classes. Although the inequality was apparent, the national government deliberately chose to take a laissez-faire stand, thus allowing big businesses to flourish but at the expense of the people. Free to do as they pleased, businesses engaged in unfair, immoral business practices not only on their competitors but also their employees and consumers. To combat this oppressive state, Americans, concerned with the welfare of the people, spoke out about these problems and encouraged reform, raising awareness through their writing. These people were known as "muckrakers," a term coined by President Theodore Roosevelt. They "raked" through the "muck" in order to expose society and corruption. Some even called these muckrakers, David, in reference to the Biblical story of David and Goliath, striking down the Goliaths (or corruptions) of society. Because society (then) revered muckrakers as great heroes, it was easy to ignore the muckraker's flaws. However, it is important to analyze the muckrakers from a more critical standpoint as well as a celebratory view in order to get a more accurate understanding of their consequential impact.