The Other Civil War

In 4-6 sentences respond to the prompt. Respond by Monday, December 22, 2014. Reply to one other student by Sunday, January 11, 2015.

Some historians have argued that the Civil War was the rich man’s battle but the poor man’s fight. How does what you read in this chapter support that argument? What is your position? Explain. 

A Kind of Revolution

In four to six sentences and using evidene from the reading reply to this prompt: In Chapter Five of A People's History, Zinn makes the assertion that the "Constitution serves the interest of the wealthy", support, modify or refute this statement. Then reply to one other person's post.

Zinn Chapter Four "Tyranny is Tyranny"

Based on Zinn's argument in Chapter Four "Tyranny is Tyranny" in whose best interest was the American Revolution? Please provide evidence from the text.

Robber Barons or Captains of Industry?

Captains of Industry or Robber Barons?

The wave of industrialism that we have been studying was often driven by a few great men known as industrialists. There can be no mistaking their motives: wealth. There is some debate, however, on the how history should portray these industrialists.

Some feel that the powerful industrialists of the gilded age should be referred to as "robber barons." This view accentuates the negative. It portrays men like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller and Ford and cruel and ruthless businessmen who would stop at nothing to achieve great wealth. These "robber barons" were accused of exploiting workers and forcing horrible working conditions and unfair labor practices upon the laborer.

Another view of the industrialist is that of "captain of industry." The term captain views these men as viewed ingenious and industrious leaders who transformed the American economy with their business skills. They were praised for their skills as well as for their philanthropy (charity).

In reality the debate over robber barons and captains of industry mirrors views of industrialism itself. Just as their were both positives and negatives to industrialism there were positives and negatives to the leaders of industrialism.

The following discussion has been going on between historians for years. Were men like Carnegie, Rockefeller,Morgan captains of industry that helped to catapult the United States as the number one economic power in the world by 1900 or were these men robber barons who made millions on the backs of workers and attempted to eliminate all competition in the process. History is a field of study that that should be viewed upon with objectivity and not bias or a modern political agenda. Our history is not all about heroes nor it is it all about villains. It is the story of a free people who changed the world in which they lived at the time and forever impacted the future.

Discuss your perspective on this question with valid arguments. Be sure to read all posts, make your post, answer or ask a question, and move the conversation forward.