Were the industrialists of the late 19th Century “Robber Barons” or “Captains of Industry?” Were the results of their efforts, examples of exploitation and graft, or were they philanthropic and cultural giants who helped to build the American culture?

• Tammanay Hall found jobs for various immigrants but with purpose of maintaining political power
• Used their financial wealth to provide themselves with support and weren't as concerned with the benefits of who the political bosses gave power to
• Railroad companies established towns where they regulated prices but when they decreased wages they didn't care to decrease prices in the town
• Carnegie believed that inequality was inevitable and good but that the wealth should advise the poorer people in society
• The big business people did provide people with jobs that they would never have been able to find otherwise
• Big businesses are responsible for creating the city life that so many people were able to enjoy even though they were in the working clases
• Wealthy people of the city were responsible for building the parks and public buildings that made the cities attractive in order to give relief and make the city a place of true learning and knowledge
• Had a lot of graft and corruption, some of it was hones but some of it was exploiting the companies that developed the cities

The wealthy often gave to the poor.

• Carnegie donated money to Carnegie Hall, public libraries, etc. People who could not get a formal education could still enrich their lives
• Henry Ford payed workers well - "I pay my workers so they can buy my products" -- more people could now own cars so mobility is increased.
• Ford founded the Ford Foundation in 1936
• Rockefeller donated money to education, public health, science research and arts

Which side of the question are we supporting? Captains of industry and cultural giants, or corrupt robber barons? 

Captains of Industry Stuff

• More about the wealthy donating to the poor: Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth
• Big businesses led to the growth of cities, which in turn led to modern American society
• Big business drove the economy, laying a solid manufacturing foundation for the 20th century's demands

Robber Barons stuff

• Pullman and Ford were exceptions, not the rule, when it came to worker treatment
• Bribed gov't officials, Congress
• Monopolies drove out competition, hurting consumers
• Ruthlessly crushed labor movements

   Intro: The late ninetheenth century is best known for its incredible growth in big business.  All over the country new corporations were established and huge, industrial cities were developed.  With the increase in big business came a new level of wealth that had never been seen before.  Through the new monopolies that were created by the large businesses, entrepeneurs acquired more money than anyone else in the country.  While there were few exceptions, most of these wealthy business leaders used their financial power to increase their political status or opress their own laborers.  The late nineteenth century led to more political corruption and opression that the United States had ever seen in the workplace, which is why these workers were in fact rober barrons, not the captains of industry they wished to portray themselves as.

I guess we're doing the robber baron side. Here's how I'd write the intro with your thesis/info/ideas:

The late nineteenth century was a time of incredible economic growth. Across the country, small businesses were being replaced by giant corporations and industrial conglomerates, leading to a new, unprecedented level of wealth for the entrepreneurs who developed them. They integrated both horizontally and vertically, expanding their influence with monopolies and trusts, to the point where just a few men controlled entire industries and huge portions of the United States economy. But all of this wealth came at a price, and, while some of these men were genuinely charitable and philanthropic, the vast majority was not. These robber barons, as they came to be called, oppressed their employees, children and adults alike, paying them meager wages for long hours of repetitious and often hazardous work, and ruthlessly broke up unions and strikes. And to ensure that this power would not be taken from them, they paid off city, state, and national politicians to remain favorable to big businesses. These captains of industry, (can't be captains of industry if we are taking the rober barrons thesis.  the two ideas are contradictory) like Jay Gould, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller, were not builders of American society and culture but corrupt, greedy exploiters of the American economy.

Greg: This is what I came up with for the intro.  Feel free to change whatever you would like (I put it in our essay for now):

 The late ninetheenth century is best known for its incredible growth in big business.  Across the country, small businesses were being replaced by giant corporations and industrial conglomerates, leading to a new, unprecedented level of wealth for the entrepreneurs who developed them.  With the increase in big business came a new level of wealth that had never been seen before.  But all of this wealth came at a price, and, while some of these men were genuinely charitable and philanthropic, the vast majority was not. These robber barons, as they came to be called, oppressed their employees, children and adults alike, paying them meager wages for long hours of repetitious and often hazardous work, and ruthlessly broke up unions and strikes.  And to ensure that this power would not be taken from them, they paid off city, state, and national politicians to remain favorable to big businesses.  The late nineteenth century led to more political corruption and opression that the United States had ever seen in the workplace, which is why these workers were in fact rober barrons, not the captains of industry they wished to portray themselves as.    

Conclusion:

In summary, the industrialists in the late nineteenth century were robber barons, as opposed to captains of industry.  While they may be responsible for developing the entire city economy, it came at the cost of expoloitation, opression and even the lives of many citizens.  Instead of using their wealth to assist the greater good, they used weath for personal gain and mistreated their workers.  To say that every wealthy entrepeneur was a robber barron is unfair; there were some exceptions to the rule such as Henry Ford.  For the most part, however, the wealthy class at the end of the nineteenth century was not concerned with helping society as a whole.  There is no doubt that these robber barrons helped to create the modern-day economy, but it came at a high price.

Quick comment: "captains of industry" does not imply philanthropy or cultural contribution, it merely implies that they are the ones with the power. I'm sorry I misused the term before.

To Ms. P: Can we go back and edit the conclusion after we've written the body paragraphs? I find it hard to write a conclusion when I'm not perfectly clear on what's in the rest of my essay.

"Meat Paragrpahs"

Instead of using their wealth to better the lives of the average American citizen, the robber barrons of the late nineteenth century found that their wealth could bring them more political power than they could ever imagine.  People who were never had the capability of being politicains suddenly found an opportunity to receive power simply from their vast sums of money.  What happened was that the industrialist leaders would create the notorious political machines.  The machines started as a result of the mass number of immagrants coming into the city and needing help adjusting.  The wealthy bosses would provide the immigrants and other voting citizens with the things they needed and in return would receive their vote.  Then, once the wealthy business man had a political office, they would appoint people who were not necessarily the best qualified, but rather the most loyal, to good, public jobs.  Whie it would seem that the bosses were being generous in assisting the immagrants and lower classes, they were actually destroying the government.  Once people who weren't capable of holding public office had these jobs, the governments couldn't function and they becasme an obsticle in the way of the progression of other groups.  However, the bosses continued to do this becuase they were able to keep their power through these means.  The effects of the political machine can be seen in Horace Taylor's cartoon of the man with the white house in his hand.  This is meant to show that the governemnt was being controlled by these political machines as they became more prevalent.  In additon, part of the caption reads "What a funny little governemnt," which is meant to convey that the government is not being controlled by the best suited for the jobs, but rather the wealthiest.  Another cartoon which portrays a similar message is C. Gordon Moffat's cartoon of Uncle Sam walking the plank of the trusts' pirate ship and the caption stating, "one sees his finish unless good government retakes the ship."  Both of these cartoon prove that wealthy men, not good politicians were in charge of the government and that instead of using money to help the poor who needed it, the robber barrons chose to instead make themselves leading politicians through the very corrupt political machines.

Paragraph 2:

A further example of the corruption of these wealthy industrialists is through the working conditions of their employees. Many entrepreneurs forced their workers to work long days with little pay. An eight hour work day was a luxury that the majority of American's did not have. An example of this is Cornelius Vanderbilt, also known as "Commodore" Vanderbilt. He was a steamship and railroad builder who beileved his money allowed him to do whatever he wanted, including oppress his workers. This worker treatment did not stop with him, either, but was passed down to his son, William Vanderbilt, who was equally as arrogant as his father. The Vanderbilt's were not the only industrialists to mistreat their workers. Andrew Carnegie also mistreated his workers. Laborers of "Carnegie Steel Company" were mostly underpaid, overworked immigrants. And they were seen as an extra cost to be kept as low as possible. Carnegie, Vanderbilt and many others cared for nothing more than their own wealth. Safety issues weren't considered important, because it would cost more money. If workers took longer shifts, they believed, it would cost them less. And, of course, workers were underpaid. They did not get paid for overtime, but were expected to work longer if there was still work to be done. Overall, employers were robber barrons when it came to the treatment of their workers. Carnegie and Vanderbilt are not the only examples, there were many other entrepreneurs who refused to treat workers in a human-like manor. Instead, they used them for personal gain.

Paragraph 3:

The worst form of oppression that the robber barons employed, however, was not in what they told employees to do, but how they forced them to do it. Obviously, workers were not content with the treatment they received at the hands of their employers, and workers had been striking for higher wages since the turn of the nineteenth century. In 1847 they won an important legal victory in the Massachusetts Supreme Court case , establishing that strikers and labor unions could not be charged with conspiracy. But employers soon found new ways to keep their workers in line. To coerce union leaders into accepting the company’s generally unfavorable terms in negotiations, they would lock the unionized workers out of factories and plants. In one notorious example, Henry Clay Frick, who managed the Homestead steel mill under Carnegie, built a high barbed-wire fence around his plant, reinforced by sniper towers and high-pressure water cannons, to prevent the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers from operating in the plant after failed negotiations. Sometimes, rather than negotiate with labor unions on strike, companies simply brought in non-union workers, known derisively as “scabs,” to keep production going. When force was needed, companies turned to the Pinkerton National Detective Agency to literally fight striking workers. And if that didn’t work, they used their immense political clout to get assistance from the state or even federal troops when they needed it, as happened in the Homestead and Pullman strikes. Many times, authorization for brutal tactics came directly from company owners, like Thomas Alexander Scott, owner of the Pennsylvania Railroad, who advocated giving striking workers a "rifle diet for a few days," and even the philanthropic Andrew Carnegie advocated the use of force in the Homestead strike. The use of such unscrupulous methods was not an isolated incident, but a common trend among the robber barons of the Gilded Age.

      The late ninetheenth century is best known for its incredible growth in big business.  Across the country, small businesses were being replaced by giant corporations and industrial conglomerates, leading to a new, unprecedented level of wealth for the entrepreneurs who developed them.  With the increase in big business came a new level of wealth that had never been seen before.  But all of this wealth came at a price, and, while some of these men were genuinely charitable and philanthropic, the vast majority was not. These robber barons, as they came to be called, oppressed their employees, children and adults alike, paying them meager wages for long hours of repetitious and often hazardous work. They also ruthlessly broke up unions and strikes and, to ensure that their power would not be taken from them, they paid off city, state, and national politicians to remain favorable to big businesses.  The late nineteenth century led to more political corruption and opression that the United States had ever seen in the workplace, which is why these workers were in fact rober barrons, not the captains of industry they wished to portray themselves as.    

      Instead of using their wealth to better the lives of the average American citizen, the robber barrons of the late nineteenth century found that their wealth could bring them more political power than they could ever imagine.  People who were never had the capability of being politicains suddenly found an opportunity to receive power simply from their vast sums of money.  The robber barrons created the notorious political machines of the late nineteenth century. The machines started as a result of the mass number of immagrants entering cities. These immigrants were unaccustomed to American life and needed help adjusting.  The wealthy bosses would provide the immigrants and other voting citizens with the things they needed and in return would receive their vote.  Then, once the wealthy business man had a political office, they would appoint people who were not necessarily the best qualified, but rather the most loyal, to important, public jobs. Once people who weren't capable of holding public office had these jobs, the governments couldn't function and they became an obsticle in the way of the progression of many other groups.  Although these bosses were destroying the government, they continued to do this becuase they were able to keep their power through these means.  The effects of the political machine can be seen in Horace Taylor's cartoon of the man with the white house in his hand.  This is meant to show that the governemnt was being controlled by these political machines as they became more prevalent.  In additon, part of the caption reads "What a funny little governemnt," which is meant to convey that the government is not being controlled by the best suited for the jobs, but rather the wealthiest, and that it cannot function properly or be taken completely seriously.  Another cartoon which portrays a similar message is C. Gordon Moffat's cartoon of Uncle Sam walking the plank of the trusts' pirate ship and the caption stating, "one sees his finish unless good government retakes the ship."  Both of these cartoons prove that wealthy men, not good politicians were in charge of the government.  Instead of using money to help the poor who needed it, the robber barrons chose to make themselves leading politicians through the very corrupt political machines.

     A further example of the corruption of these wealthy industrialists can be seen in the working conditions of their employees. Many entrepreneurs forced their workers to work long days with little pay. An eight hour work day was a luxury that the majority of American's did not have. One of the most notorious business leaders who exploited his workers was Cornelius Vanderbilt, also known as "Commodore" Vanderbilt." He was a steamship and railroad builder who beileved his money allowed him to do whatever he wanted, including oppress his workers. This treatment did not stop with him, either, and was passed down to his son, William Vanderbilt, who was as arrogant as his father. But the Vanderbilts were not the only industrialists who mistreated their workers. Andrew Carnegie also mistreated his workers. Laborers at the Carnegie Steel Company were mostly underpaid, overworked immigrants, seen only as an extra cost to be kept as low as possible. Carnegie, Vanderbilt and many others cared for nothing more than their own wealth. Safety issues weren't considered important, because it would cost more money. If workers took longer shifts, they believed, it would cost them less. And, of course, workers were underpaid. They did not get paid for overtime, but were expected to work longer if there was still work to be done. Overall, employers were robber barrons when it came to the treatment of their workers. Carnegie and Vanderbilt are not the only examples; there were many other entrepreneurs who refused to treat workers in a human-like manner, using them instead for personal gain.

     The worst form of oppression that the robber barons employed, was not in what they told employees to do, but how they forced them to do it. Obviously, workers were not content with the treatment they received at the hands of their employers, and workers had been striking for higher wages since the turn of the nineteenth century. In 1842 they won an important legal victory in the Massachusetts Supreme Court case Commonwealth vs. Hunt, which established the legal precedent that strikes and labor unions were not a form of conspiracy. But employers soon found new ways to keep their workers in line. To coerce union leaders into accepting the company’s generally unfavorable contract terms, they would lock the unionized workers out of factories and plants. In one infamous example, Henry Clay Frick, manager of the Homestead steel mill under Andrew Carnegie, built a high barbed-wire fence around his plant after failed negotiations, reinforced by sniper towers and high-pressure water cannons, to prevent the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers from operating in the plant. Sometimes, rather than negotiate with labor unions on strike, companies simply brought in non-union workers, known derisively as “scabs,” to maintain the production rate. When force was needed, companies turned to the Pinkerton National Detective Agency to literally fight striking workers. If the Pinkerton company was not strong enough to supress the strike, big business leaders used their immense political clout to get assistance from the state or even federal troops when they needed it, as happened in the Homestead and Pullman strikes. Many times, authorization for brutal tactics came directly from company owners, like Thomas Alexander Scott, owner of the Pennsylvania Railroad, who advocated giving striking workers a "rifle diet for a few days." Even the philanthropic Andrew Carnegie advocated the use of force against the AA during the Homestead strike. Clearly, the use of such unscrupulous methods was not an isolated incident, but a trend among the robber barons of the Gilded Age.