Robber Barons

views updated

ROBBER BARONS

ROBBER BARONS. At the turn of the twentieth century, crusading journalists and other critics scornfully labeled the leading business titans of the age, the "Robber Barons." The term grew from the overwhelming power these industrial giants wielded over many aspects of society and the resentment those suffering under their yoke felt. Disgust with the power of corporate America and individuals like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and J. P. Morgan led to the growth of the Progressive movement and to reform efforts, including antitrust legislation, and investigative journalism, or muckraking.

Robber Barons were vilified for using the capitalist system to exploit workers, form anti-competitive trusts, and place the accumulation of wealth above all else. The belief that the rich could use whatever means necessary to increase their riches seemed to counter the ideals upon which the United States was founded. Muckraking journalists such as Ida Tarbell, who wrote about the abuses of Rockefeller's Standard Oil, reinforced the idea that the Robber Barons were a destructive force, a group of soulless industrialists willing to circumvent laws to achieve supremacy.

Although the exact origin of the term is unknown, Edwin L. Godkin, an editor of The Nation used the term in 1869, while during the same time period Senator Carl Schurz of Missouri used it in a speech. The term became a permanent part of the nation's lexicon after Matthew Josephson's The Robber Barons (1934) gained wide readership, particularly among historians. Josephson wrote his book in reaction to the generally business-friendly works of the pre–Great Depression 1920s, which painted the Robber Barons as benevolent leaders. Josephson viewed the Robber Barons as unscrupulous pirates fighting to control the nation's economy.

The 1940s and 1950s witnessed a revival of the view of business leaders as industrial statesmen, which reflected the image of America's post–World War II economic, military, and cultural hegemony. A new school of historians wrote about these leaders as exemplary figures. Works in this vein include John D. Rockefeller: The Heroic Age of American Enterprise (1940) by Allan Nevins and Triumph of American Capitalism (1942) by Louis M. Hacker. In the same vein, but not quite as fawning, are two national prizewinning works: Morgan: American Financier (1999) by Jean Strouse and Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (1998) by Ron Chernow.

In the early twenty-first century, the public once again looked back on the Robber Barons much more favorably than they were viewed in their own times. Morgan and Rockefeller, for example, acquired tremendous wealth, but also donated large sums to philanthropic and cultural causes, and both had an innate sense of the social responsibility that came with great prosperity. Both worked diligently throughout their later years to become civic patron saints, believing that donating money would soften the legacy of their business actions.

The Robber Barons also benefited from the generally favorable light many high-profile chief executives enjoyed during the early twenty-first century. Comparisons of Morgan and Rockefeller to Microsoft's Bill Gates or Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett were not filled with scorn, but a sense of admiration and respect. In addition, the resurgence of the biography as America's favorite source of historical information helped soften the sharp edges of many Robber Barons. In recent years, most of the Robber Barons have been the subject of big general history biographies that have been predominantly favorable.