Friday, June 5, 2015

Carnegie and Rockefeller: Feeding or Robbing the People?

After our long Civil War unit came to a close, we only had a few weeks left of school, so in order to get the most information in, we changed the way our class was run a little. Each week, we begin a new topic, and as students create an essential question, and 40 multiple choice questions pertaining to the topic that will go on our final exam. This week, we looked at Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller, the two biggest business man in the late 19th century. During this time period, these big business man were referred to as “robber barons” or “captains of industry” by the people, depending on if they liked them or not. A captain of industry was a leader, and they fought each other for full control of their business, also known as having a monopoly. A robber baron was essentially a captain of industry that someone may not like, they were seen as corrupt and cruel, and destroyed their business rivals and treated workers poorly. The essential question for this lesson was “Should Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller be classified as robber barons or captains of industry?”
I believe that regardless, these men are captains of industry, since they were leaders during this time period. The question of whether or not they are also robber barons is one that has a less clear answer. Both Carnegie and Rockefeller were outstanding philanthropists, giving back to society in many ways. Andrew Carnegie donated millions to education, built libraries, and founded Carnegie Mellon University. John D. Rockefeller donated over 500 million dollars to education, science and medicine. Both men held the ideology that there were made rich by God, and because of this had the obligation to give back to the less fortunate. Carnegie said “I believe the power to make money is a gift of God ... to be developed and used to the best of our ability for the good of mankind. Having been endowed with the gift I possess, I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to use the money I make for the good of my fellow man according to the dictates of my conscience.” While these acts of charity would make these men seem like only captains of industry, and not robber barons, this is not all that they did. Both of their reputations were ruined by their greed and disregard to others. Rockefeller bribed politicians and did what he could to buy out or put his competition out of business, two prominent characteristics of a robber baron. Andrew Carnegie's reputation was ruined by the Homestead Lockouts, one of the largest labor disputes in American history. Many people were very angered by this, an article said “Ten thousand "Carnegie Public Libraries" would not compensate the country for the direct and indirect evils resulting from the Homestead lockout." In my opinion, it is clear that regardless of their roles as philanthropists and however much they gave back, their actions and morals still categorized them as robber barons. Their primary goal was gaining wealth, and they were not inspired by the needs of others, but only by their personal greed.
When I first thought about the essential question, my immediate answer was that these men were not at all robber barons. I was blinded by their incredible donations to society, and I hadn't realized that while this is an unbelievable amount to donate in any ones eyes, when you are as wealthy as these men were, it wouldn't effect them very much. I noticed how greedy their actions were, and how much disregard they had for others on their way to the top. I was shocked to realize how someone who gives so much can actually be so cruel. We looked at an image that I thought represented one person doing such opposite things.

This image shows Carnegie in a “double role”. On one side, he is cutting workers pay, and on the other, giving back to people. This makes me believe that his charity work was not at all out of his goodness, but solely so that he would appear good to those around him, when he in fact was cutting workers pay just the same. I can conclude from this lesson that these men purposefully made themselves out to look like selfless philanthropists, but this was all an act to cover up their robber baron ways.



Sources

Quote 1: John D. Rockefeller in an interview with William Hoster, quoted in God's Gold (1932) by John T. Flynn
Quote 2: Editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, early August, 1892.
 Image 1: "Forty-Millionaire Carnegie in his Great Double Role," The Saturday Globe, 9 July 1892; from David P. Demares
 
 

3 comments:

  1. This is article is awesome. Good job!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great article. However, I think that the Homestead Strike didn't occur exactly as expected. Carnegie had hired Henry Frick, and was on vacation in Scotland, and Frick was the one that cut the wages, as well as the one that caused much of the conflict by locking workers out of the plant, calling upon armed guards, and thus spawned the deaths of 10 men. Andrew Carnegie didn't play a major role in the Homestead strike, but he did place his trust in ruthless people like Henry Frick, which was renown for his cruel business dealings. Also, he didn't regulate what Frick could or couldn't do, trusting him to run everything while he was gone. He also did other unglamorable acts, like paying a person to fight in his place during the civil war. All in all, great article.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, same person. Here's the article. https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/andrew-carnegie

    ReplyDelete