Robber Baron Document Rankings

Power Rank 1:  Document Number: 7

Why do you believe it best represents the era you have been studying?
This document was written by a commission in the U.S. government, and is fully supportive of ideas presented by Rockefeller. This shows that in the late 19^th century, methods practiced by the Standard Oil Company and other monopolists were backed by the government.

Power Rank 2:  Document Number: 15

Why do you believe it best represents the era you have been studying?
Document 15 is a sarcastic “prayer” written from a worker to Andrew Carnegie, as if Carnegie is God and worker is just a low level human. This document shows some examples of the treatment that laborers went through at this time, and the satirical nature tells that they were unsatisfied by it.  

Power Rank 3:  Document Number: 14

Why do you believe it best represents the era you have been studying?
In document 14, Andrew Carnegie presents his view on giving aid to the poor. It shows that some “robber barons” were at times philanthropic, while at the same time presenting the idea of social Darwinism as justification for not giving TOO much to the poor.

Power Rank 4:  Document Number: 12

Why do you believe it best represents the era you have been studying?
Document 12 is a speech by Wendell Phillips in which he presents one of the more radical viewpoints of laborers, discussing such things as completely overthrowing “the whole profit-making system.” This document shows the extreme that laborers’ frustration could reach

Power Rank 5:  Document Number: 9

Why do you believe it best represents the era you have been studying?

Document 9 is an interview with the railway tycoon William H. Vanderbilt. Vanderbilt displays his total disdain for the idea that someone should work for someone else’s gain or give to anyone but themselves. He shows the quintessential view of a robber baron in this document. 

Age of Railroads

1. What problems did employees of the railroad companies face?
The railroads that spanned the continent were mostly built by immigrants and desperate Civil War veterans. These workers faced horrible working conditions, even by the standards of the 19^th century. They were working in extremely treacherous terrain; the Chinese building from the west had to cross the Rocky Mountains. The workers also had to worry about attacks from Indians, angry at the raping of their land. Not to mention, if any diseases were contracted while working on the railroad, there were no hospitals anywhere nearby. For the most part, when you got sick, you were dead. Constant accidents led to even more deaths and injuries as well. In 1888, there were an estimated 2,000 deaths and 20,000 injuries in the process of building the railroads.

2. What was it like to live as a Pullman employee in the town of Pullman?
At first, living in Pullman seemed luxurious to the employees of the Pullman Company. They had good housing, and all the necessities for life were provided for them. However, it came at a price. The town was very strictly controlled by the company. Pullman wanted to foster a productive work environment, so he allowed no alcohol or loitering in the town. There was a financial price as well. In the late 19^th century, Pullman cut all the employees pay without lowering the rent, which sparked a huge strike. This strike was likely the manifestation of years of frustration from and overly controlling company.

3. Who was involved in Crédit Mobilier, and what was the purpose of this company?
Stockholders in the Union Pacific Railroad created the company Crédit Mobilier. They then used this company to make incredibly huge profits by contracting railroads for two to three times the cost. This company was used to make money for the stockholders in Union Pacific Railroad, which included some members of congress. This corruption led to a federal investigation of the company, and found the stockholders to have about $23 million dollars of corrupt profit from the company.

4. In what ways did the railroad companies use their power to hurt farmers?
Railroad companies were giving huge land grants by the government in order to build the railroads, and the government had the intention that they’d sell the rest of the land to settlers in order to spur the agriculture in the west. The companies did not do this; they simply sold it to other companies for a higher profit. With the agricultural industry shrinking already, the railroad companies made it even more difficult for farmers to get out of debt when they created fixed prices. However, if a farmer needed to transport materials over a short distance and had only on railroad company that was close enough, this company would demand outrageously high prices, knowing they were the only option.

5. Why didn’t the decision in the Munn v. Illinois case succeed in checking the power of the railroads?
Munn v. Illinois was a court case regarding the Granger laws, which were a form of public outcry against the power of the railroad companies. The Supreme Court rules in favor of the Grangers, stating that the companies had to “establish maximum freight and passenger rates and prohibit discrimination.” This sounds like a win for the Grangers, but the slightly ambiguous wording led to another court decision saying that the government couldn’t set rates on interstate commerce. This went back on the precedent of government regulation that had been set in Munn v. Illinois.

6. Why didn’t the Interstate Commerce Act immediately limit the power of the railroads? 
The Interstate Commerce Act reinforced the precedent of regulation set by Munn v. Illinois. It gave the government power to regulate the railroad industry once again. However, it ended up being quite ineffectual. The legal process for bringing the companies to justice was incredibly long and arduous. Not to mention, in 1897, the Supreme Court ruled that the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) could not set maximum railroad rates. This ruling almost completely took away the little power that the ICC had. 

Big Business and Labor

1. Vertical integration

A. Vertical integration is buying out all the companies that control the various parts of whatever industry you’re in in order facilitate moneymaking in the industry.


B. In the case of Andrew Carnegie, he bought the producers of the raw supplies for steel and the trains that distributed it. This allowed Carnegie to produce and distribute steel much more efficiently and make more money from it.

2. Horizontal integration

A. Horizontal integration is the process of buying out other companies that produce the same or similar products in order to gain more control in the industry.


B. Andrew Carnegie bought most of the other companies that produced steel, reducing his competition. This allowed him to control the prices of steel and make much more money from the manufacturing.


3. Social Darwinism

A. Social Darwinism is a theory of the evolution of society and industry based on Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This was used as justification for “laissez faire”, meaning we should just let the marketplace go unregulated, and the strongest companies will survive while weaker ones will fail.


B. This justification allowed Andrew Carnegie to do pretty much whatever he wanted in his industry without being interrupted by regulations stepping in. He was able to buy up weaker companies and continue to grow his strong ones, referencing survival of the fittest the whole time.


4. Monopoly

A. A monopoly is when one organization has complete control over an industry’s prices, wages, and, production.


B. When a company such as Carnegie Steel held a monopoly over its industry, they could control every aspect of the industry and make as much money possible. They were able to transport and distribute supplies in a cheaper way, and then sell them for higher prices as they had gotten rid of the competition. This meant more profit.


5. Holding company

A. A holding company was a corporation that only bought out the stock of other companies.


B. These companies allowed for business owners to gain a monopoly much more easily. Making the sole purpose of the company buying out other companies streamlined the process of gaining a monopoly. These holding companies used other company’s success to grow their monopoly.


6. Trust

A. Trust agreements are when two companies put their stock into a board of trustees, who then control the two corporations as if they were one large one.


B. Trusts allowed corporations to make money off of their mergers simply by making an agreement. They also helped companies like Standard Oil to gain a monopoly, when John D. Rockefeller used a system of trusts to gain control of almost all the oil in America.  


7. The perception of tycoons as “robber barons”

C. How did it harm businesses such as Standard Oil and tycoons like John D. Rockefeller?
  As Rockefeller and other tycoons began to use questionable methods to gain more and more control over their industries,  they began to be accused of being robber barons. John D. Rockefeller and others began having to show the public that they were not money hungry villains. So, Rockefeller started the Rockefeller Foundation. He gave away over $500 million through this foundation for charity, as well as funding part of the University of Chicago. He created a very important medical institute as well. These contributions were good for society, but took away from Rockefeller’s personal fortune.

8. Sherman Antitrust Act

C. How did it harm businesses such as Standard Oil and tycoons like John D. Rockefeller?
   The Sherman Antitrust Act made it illegal to make a trust that limited free trade. This Act affected John D. Rockefeller because he had built his entire corporation and monopoly on trusts. Other companies as well, were forced to shift their organization and become one large corporation, but this cost money to do. The negative effects ended up being pretty limited, since the federal government had a very difficult time enforcing this law. 

Expansion of Industry

Factor 1: Abundant Natural Resources

A. Which resources played crucial roles in industrialization?

The two natural resources that played the biggest role in industrialization were coal, oil and steel. Oil was found below the earth’s surface, while steel was made by removing the carbon from iron ore. Coal was found underground and was mined as well.

B. How did Edwin L. Drake help industry to acquire larger quantities of oil?

In 1859, outside of Titusville, Pennsylvania, Edwin L. Drake successfully used a steam engine to drill oil from the earth’s surface. This was the first time this had ever been done and it made the process of drilling oil practical, hence making oil a more practical fuel. This led to an oil boom throughout the western United States.

C. How did the Bessemer process allow better use of iron ore?

Iron is very impractical metal to build with. It is soft and extremely prone to rusting and breaking. Around 1850, William Kelly and Henry Bessemer created a process for removing the carbon from iron ore, which turned it into the much stronger metal, steel. The Bessemer process, as it was called, was done by injecting air into iron while it was molten. This removed the carbon and other impurities at the same time.  

D. What new uses for steel were developed at this time?
  As steel became more practical to both use and manufacture, more uses began to arise for it. It was a very important material for building the railroads across the continent. Iron was too weak to handle the weight and speed of the trains, but steel could do it. At this time, cities were growing rapidly. A need began to appear for taller buildings, so you could have more offices in one area of land. Iron highly limited the size of the buildings, since if they were too tall they would collapse on themselves.   

Factor 2: Increasing number of Inventions

A. How did Thomas Alva Edison contribute to this development? 

Thomas Alva Edison was the first innovator to harness the power of electricity effectively with his invention of the incandescent light bulb. He created a method for producing electricity and distributing it to people all around America. This paved the way for other inventors to make inventions based off of electricity.

B. How did George Westinghouse contribute to it? 

George Westinghouse improved on Edison’s design, making electricity safer and less expensive. This allowed electricity to be a viable source of electricity for average Americans, not just those with money. This spurred the boom of invention that began with Edison even more. Now inventors were working on inventions that could help everyday Americans, such as household appliances. This new energy source also allowed manufacturers to move to places where they weren’t directly adjacent to a source of energy.

C. How did Christopher Sholes contribute? 

Christopher Sholes invented the typewriter in 1867. This revolutionized the world of office work. This invention created thousands of jobs for women in the office. From 1870-1910, only 40 years, the percentage of office work done by women grew from 5% to 40%.

D. How did Alexandar Graham Bell contribute? 

   Alexander Graham Bell revolutionized the world of communication with the invention of the telephone. This allowed people to communicate instantaneously across the country. The telephone also led to the previously mentioned increase in jobs for women. This invention allowed for the communication of ideas faster than ever before. 

Tarbell's History of Standard Oil

1. How did Rockefeller set out to acquire control of the oil industry?
          

           Rockefeller acquired the oil industry through taking control of the organization and the manner in which oil was sold. Previously, refineries sent oil straight to their own agents throughout the country, where these agents sold the oil to households and companies. Rockefeller set out to making all the agents selling oil work for him. These agents would still report to the same refinery, who would report to a main regional business, who would eventually report to John D. Rockefeller at the top, making money from all the businesses below him.

2. Do you think Rockefeller deserved to be called a "robber baron?" Why or why not?

            

            I think it is fair to some extent to call Rockefeller a “robber baron”. This term generally refers to a businessman who used questionable methods to achieve their wealth. It is clear that Rockefeller was very determined when he put his mind to something, and perhaps in the process of acquiring a whole business this could have led him down some questionable roads. It is very unlikely that in the process of taking over an entire industry, he wouldn’t dabble in some, perhaps, alternative business methods. However, it is also unlikely that this was his goal from the beginning; his original goal was to use his cunning and intelligence to make money of a blossoming industry. 

Telling New Stories

1. What were the two versions of the Camp Grant attack that existed among the U.S. public, and who supported each view?

Version One of the Event:

The settlers and O’odham involved were hailed as heroes by many newspapers. The group said that they were simply retaliating for stolen cattle and a few dead settlers, whom the Apache had supposedly killed.

Who supported Version One?

This version, the “Camp Grant Affair”, was supported by the local western settlers, including the Mexican-Americans, and the O’odham people.


Version Two of the Event:

This view was from the perspective of Lieutenant Whitman of the U.S. Army, and the commander of Camp Grant. He said it was an unjustified attack from the settlers, and an slaughter of innocent women and children.

Who supported Version Two?

This view was supported by the U.S. government and reformers throughout the country. They began to call it the “Camp Grant Massacre.”

2. Why was the trial that took place after the attack significant?

After months and months of pressure, officials in the Camp Grant area put the leaders of the Camp Grant Attack on trial. This was the first time ever that a non-Apache was arrested for killing an Apache. However, only representatives from the U.S. government, Mexican-American settlers, U.S. settlers, and one O’odham testified. With no view from the Apache standpoint, the defendants were acquitted.

3. Whose views were absent in the accounts of this attack that were told in the United States?

Anglo-Americans were able to contact newspapers throughout the country; they could get their side of the story to the outside world very easily. Mexican-Americans, Apache, and the O’odham, on the other hand, were essentially cut off from the rest of the country. Therefore, in every part of the country, everyone heard the side of the Anglo-Americans and never the perspective of the Mexican-Americans, Apache, or O’odham.  

4. Why have Native American views been excluded from the story of U.S. expansion that is told in the United States?

In the telling of the story of westward expansion, the Anglo-Americans wanted to portray themselves in the most positive light possible. This was easy for them, since they were the dominant people throughout the United States. Since most interactions with Native Americans would put a negative shade on the account of westward expansion, often these stories just weren’t told. Native Americans were completely omitted from many accounts.

5. What were the two parts of the U.S. government's assimilation plan in the late nineteenth century?

a. Pack all of the Indians onto tight, barren lands under U.S. control. The government wanted them in high concentration so they could


b. erase their culture completely. They wanted them to be Christian, speak English and farm on small independent lands. Once this was achieved, they could become a normal part of American society.


6. Give two examples of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures?


a. Indians were banned from practicing their own religion and cultural ceremonies on the reservation. This was a way of integrating Christianity rather than their individual religions.


b. Thousands of Indian children were sent to boarding schools and forced to act like American children, with short hair and speaking English. This was a way of getting rid of their Indian culture early, so that they could make normal citizens within a generation.


7. What effect did the railroad have on U.S. settlement of the West?

With the advent of the transcontinental railroad, Americans had the ability to make larger towns and some cities, rather than settling in small pockets of the desert. They were able to get supplies from the eastern factories, and were able to send back the minerals they mined and make money more easily of their mining ventures. As a result of it becoming more profitable to live out west, the U.S. had to take even more of the Indians land and force them onto reservations in an even more violent manner.

8. How did westward expansion fuel U.S. industrialization?

As more and more people moved west on the railroads, more materials were being mined by them. These materials were being sent back to the growing factories in Eastern cities. Food farmed in the west was being sent to the East as well as Europe, and eventually these two areas became dependent on this food. This availability of goods spurred rapid growth of the United States economy and encouraged industrialization.

Experiencing U.S. Expansion: Southern Arizona - Part II

6. What two threats did Mexico face in its northern frontier in the mid-nineteenth century?

a. The people in northern Mexico faced renewed conflicts and fights with the Apache and O’odham people.

b. These people also faced the U.S.A., which was eager to expand into their territory.

7. Why did the Gadsden Purchase have such a great impact on northern Mexicans?

When the U.S. bought the piece of land in northern Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase, they were buying the land where many major northern Mexican cities and towns were on. This led the people living in these cities to feel very betrayed by their own government. Although not immediate, in the next few decades they had to learn to adapt to life in the U.S..

8. List two ways that cultural misunderstanding contributed to a growing conflict between U.S. settlers
and Apache groups.

a. When U.S. settlers began to move into the land acquired in the Gadsden Purchase, they were quick to make peace agreements with Apache groups. However, when they made an agreement, they assumed it was with all the Apache groups in the area. So, when other groups raided them, they got angry at the group with whom they had made peace agreements.

b. The second misunderstanding has to do with raiding as well. When the Apache raided the U.S., they assumed it was a malicious attack. In fact, it did not become malicious until the U.S. started retaliating. Before that, raiding was a key source of supplies for the Apache, and the U.S. did not understand this.


9. How did the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase spark a civil war in...

a. Mexico- Many Mexicans were disgraced by the territory losses in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase.  Most of these Mexicans blamed the losses on Mexico’s government and bad leadership, and argued that this and the economy and society needed a complete overhaul. At the end of a brutal Civil War, this goal was achieved.

b. the United States- The U.S.A. on the other hand, was gaining territory very quickly. However, this created an argument in the congress about whether or not these new states should be admitted into the Union as free or slave states. This bitter argument finally exploded in the form of a Civil War.


10. a. What did many U.S. settlers want U.S. policy towards the Apache to be?

Many U.S. settlers wanted the Apache to be punished for their deeds against America. They thought the most suitable method to punish them was through very violent means, such as war with all Apache. Some settlers even advocated extermination.

b. In what ways did this clash with the federal government’s Peace Policy?

The Peace Policy gave support and assistance to the Apache in exchange for them moving onto a set reservation called Fort Apache. The settlers in the area argued that they were not being punished enough for their actions, rather it seemed like they were being rewarded.

11. Why were the Apache hesitant to move onto reservations?

By nature, the Apache were migrant people. They moved according to the seasons and where the good hunting was. Putting them on a reservation did not fit their lifestyle. Many Apache also believed that this was just more U.S. treachery. They had heard stories of brutal wars with the Navajo people in New Mexico as the U.S. attempted to move them onto reservations, and thought that the Peace Policy might just be another excuse to kill many Apache that did not move onto the reservation.