Syeda Lubabah Humanities Period 2-3 11/2/13

Robber Baron or Captain of Industry?

In many cases, the term robber baron is not at all accurate. During the late 1800s to the early 1900s, the economy was growing and growing incredibly, mostly because of the work of the robber barons. Many people frequently make false assumptions to major business tycoons. One major robber baron and industrialist during this time was Andrew Carnegie. Indeed Andrew Carnegie was a captain of industry and the term robber baron was highly unnecessary for him and the rest of the industrialists during that time. Andrew Carnegie was born in Scotland to a poor family in 1835. In 1848 he immigrated to America. Carnegie worked in a Pittsburgh cotton factory as a boy before rising to the position of division superintendent of the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1859. While working for the railroad, he invested in many things, including iron and oil companies, and made his first fortune by the time he was in his early 30s. In the early 1870s, he entered the steel business, and over the next two decades became a dominant force in the industry. (http://www.history.com/topics/andrew-carnegie) In 1901, he sold the Carnegie Steel Company to banker John Pierpont Morgan for $480 million. Carnegie then devoted himself to philanthropy, eventually giving away more than $350 million. (http://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande01.html) People usually classify Andrew Carnegie as a robber baron. But in many cases, Andrew Carnegie did not deserve this title. Instead he is more like a captain of industrialization. The American library says that, Andrew Carnegie was not a robber baron. Mr. Carnegie was a philaphiant and gave more than half of his fortune to make libraries all around America and spent more money on ensuring peace in this world. Carnegie sold his company for $420 million and spent $350 million on building libraries. (http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/carnegie/aa_carnegie_ phil_1.html page 2.) This shows that with his fortune, he did not waste it on selfish things like houses and fancy cars. Instead he was a kind man and spent it on libraries to make sure that kids got a good education like how he did. Also Thomas J. DiLorenzo writes, ...succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. (http://mises.org/daily/2317 Page 4) this shows that Andrew Carnegie made his customers pay the least amount because he did not belive in payin g to much for something. So with the low prices and businesses he had, he was able to help the economy get to where it is today. The fact that Andrew Carnegie was a philaphiant and gave

more than half of his fortune to libraries and world peace and made sure his products were inexpensive for his customers, proves that he was not a robber barons that was bad, but instead he was a captain of industrialization that helped the economy and the the world. Some people believe that Andrew Carnegie deserved this title robber baron and that he was evil and cruel. Arden Davidson writes, While the robber barons were talented, extraordinarily ambitious, and productive men, they hated competition between themselves. (http://www.worldissues360.com/index.php/robber-barons-good-orevil-1731 9/ Paragraph 4) Some people assumed that people like Andrew Carnegie hated competion so that was what made them bad and evil. Also wiseGeek stated in an article that, ...in the case that early workers in factories suffered inhumane treatment. (http://www.wisegeek .org/what-is-a-robber-baron.htm) People believed that Carnegie was mean to his workers and took credit for what they did. Some people believed that Andrew Carnegie and the other robber barons hated competition because they wanted power for themselves to do evil things and selfish things. Also some believed he treated his workers harshly and took their hard work to make himself look better. Even though many believe that Andrew carnegie was evil, this is not completely correct. Some people thought that they hated competition, and wanted more power for themselves to do evil things. (http://www.worldissues360.com/index.php/robber-barons good-or-evil-17319/ Paragraph 4)This may have been true but in a different way. Many business dislike competition in general because indeed they want to be the change in the world. Also when they didnt have any competition, they were able to become successful more easily and will be able to do many other good things with their power. For example, with the power and wealth Andrew had, he was able to Approve a library system for the entire country. Also other people think that Andrew treated his workers harshly, and he took credit for what his workers did. (http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-robberbaron.htm) Andrew did not treat his workers harshly because he was was a worker and he was payed little wages so he wouldnt do that to someone else. On the other hand he did take the credit of his workers but he did so he was able to get some power to help people like his workers. For example with his wealth he made libraries and with those libraries, people like his workers were able to learn and get at least a bit of an education. Even with the little bad things he did, Carnegie is still not a Robber Baron because he did a list of good things in return. Overall, Andrew Carnegie was a good man. He was simply a poor scottish boy that became into a rich and successful industrialization. He should not have been classified as a robber baron. He used his wealth for many good things and even if he did somethings bad, he did it for a very good reasons and overall he was a good person. Mr. Carnegie just had too many haters so thats why people made these false assumptions about him. Even with him dead, he was still a good person to how it is today. Dont you think?