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.
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.
