Robber Baron Research Paper

Ciarra McGee
Professor Frawley
U.S. History 1302
6 November 2013
Robber Baron or Captain of Industry
In the 1880’s, American industry grew due to many factors including “the emergence of a talented and often ruthless group of entrepreneurs” (Brinkley 396). According to those in favor of these entrepreneurs, these men worked hard, innovated technology and strategized competitively to transform the American economy; these “Captains of Industry,” such as Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J Pierpoint Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, used their wealth to help their communities and should be honored for their philanthropy. An advocate for these entrepreneurs is John S. Gordon. As a specialist of business and financial history, Gordon claims
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 regulations were never enforced and ignored for the sake of the elite. While Zinn acknowledges the philanthropy of some big 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” (Zinn 61). Zinn wants his audience to believe that corporations as well as the government conspires against the masses to continue a capitalist American that only benefits the rich and takes advantage of the people. In order to end the control of the people through corporations, America must transform into a Socialist
Gordon interpret the events of the 1800’s entirely different. Both present strong arguments using facts; However, Zinn’s use of statistics makes his argument slightly stronger. To the contrary, both manipulate the facts to support their agendas, which imposes a weakness in their writing styles. A well-rounded argument offers both perspectives on one topic so that the reader can make his or her own 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 big business 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 big businessmen; big business was cruel and kind through their philanthropist