Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is an open forum for CCHS AP US History students. There will be an official posting each week for each student to respond. However, you may also post other information and questions you have concerning AP US History or CCHS.
Blog Archive
About Me
- Mrs. Vince
- This is my 7th year teaching AP US History and our third year to blog. Please put forth your best effort and hopefully it will be beneficial for everyone!!!
15 comments:
This is hard to answer because I want to call them robber barons because they were so harsh in how they achieved their status. Then again they were captains of industry because they were great in their individual industries. All in all I would say that these men began as captains of industry but as time progressed their desire for sucess made them become robber barons.
I believe they should be referred to as the "Captains of Industry" because not only did they become some of the wealthiest men in history, they did it with such ingenious methods. And so what if their tactics may have been underhanded, it's a dog-eat-dog world.
I agree with Cathy on how it is hard to choose which one. However, these men worked hard to get where they were and wanted to stay there. In order to keep their status, a few things would be sacrificed in return. Considering this type of outlook I say that they were overall "robber barons".
I think that this term fits these men very well because that they did use bad tactics to gain there wealth and industries. They were Captains of Industry and were able to make a great wealth on their industries and as matt said become some of the wealthiest men in history. But considering that they used bad means of tactics to come to the place they did i consider them to be Robber Barons.
Casey:)
This is hard to answer, like Cathy said. In many ways they could be seen as robber barons because of their harsh tatics in acheiving success. Yet, I would have to say that in my own personal opinion, I view them as "robber barons", for to achieve this success they dominated their industry, and tried to beride themselves of competition.
I would have to agree with Cathy in saying both. They were captains of industry at first but as time went on they got corrupt. But if they hadn't done what they did, would someone else have made that same impact? I think that they were, for the most part, captains of industry.
I also agree with Cathy its a hard decision when judging these people. In my onpinion they are Captains of Industry because their businesses became a gigantic success they became the wealthiest and they were helping America with the industry that they created. Maybe they did become corrupt and had a low way of becoming captains but to become a success sometimes you have to step on some peoples toes. yes that might sound bad but look where it got them. This is why i believe they are captains of industry.
Captins of industry for sure!!
these men grew up on nothing. they made a corperation on nothing but their determination and time they spent in their companies. Back then there were no laws to prohibit there ideas they had for expanding their corperations so legally they werent breacking the law. I respect the way they didnt let anything stand n their way. so they are definatly captins of industry.
KAILA
I think that they could be viewed as both. They did achieve their success by using harsh ways. But in some ways, they didn't, so therefore they would be viewed as a captain of industry.
They should be viewed as Captains of Industry. They simply saw a void or some little niche that they could fill, and filled it exceptionally. Vanderbilt standardized the rail size, started the use of stronger steel rails, made more luxurious rail carts. Carnegie cut out the middle man. Rockefeller captured the power of oil.
They also got rid of competition, which many see as a bad thing, but it is not. The abuse of the monopoly or allowing the deterioration in quality of goods from that monopoly is bad, but the monopoly itself is not bad. Just like the love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself.
The employees were stepped on by these captains, but only because they allowed themselves to be stepped on. The strike-breaking 'scabs' were the worst of these workers, who undermined the efforts of the employees to get better conditions. If these captains had had a bit more foresight, they might've been able to save their image by improving the conditions of the workers. Sadly they had to be told to do it, after everyone he become embittered by the policies of the Captains, and thus their image has been forever tarred.
I believe they shou;d ne viewed as captains of industry. These men may have been harsh but they did what they had to do to be able to become captains and become so successful in their chosen field. But their desire made them feel like robber barons.
I think they should be refereed to as captains of industry because that is exactly what they were. They did what they had to do to succeed in their specified field, and what they did wasn't always harsh as Cathy says. They were genius in methods they used, and many of them donated to good causes and helped the general public. They earned everything they had and worked hard for it. They deserved to be in a position of power.
i think that they were captains of industry because they did the best that they could in the areas of business yes the ways they went about gaining all of there wealth was a little dirty and harsh but the men knew what the wanted and then the did all that they could to ge it and is that not the american dream
They should be viewed as Captains of Industry in my opinion because the were the wealthiest men to ever live because they worked hard to achieve the great wealth
I would lean toward calling them Robber Barons, because for them to become captain of industry they exploited workers and bought out all competion becoming monopolies. Vanderbilt was so notorious he said, "The public be damned." Rockefellers oil was too powerful the legs of his industry expanded to controll the branches of goverment. Carnegie had controll over the expansion of America because he held in his grips all the steel. Although these men worked hard to become the richest men in history, the way in which they did it was wrong. While they were hording their mone they were breaking the backs of men, women, and innocent childeren who were starving and living in horridous conditions. These men didn't considered what they were doing to the poor people working under them, they were just worried about living it up. So yes, I do believe they were Robber Barrons.
MAYNARD
Post a Comment