Comparing, Contrasting, and Judging the Industrial Titans of the 19th Century

The "Wealth and Power" documentary we watched in class today describing both the positive and negative attributes and actions of some of the wealthiest businessmen in 19th century America begs the question, should Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller be considered triumphant innovators and leaders of industry worthy of great admiration, or should they be remembered as thieving scoundrels who greedily hoarded so much of the country's capital and power? To synthesize the worksheet we filled out on this topic, I thought I would give my opinion on each of these four wealthy men, choose the one I think most deserves the title of "Captain of Industry" and the one who most deserves to be shunned as a "Robber Baron," and then open up the discussion for everyone else to add their own perspective. 

I would say that the most important criterion for me in making this decision for each of the four tycoons is how hard they worked for their money. The documentary noted that each man worked his way up the business ladder and continually put effort into their businesses, and I suppose it should be obvious that they didn't get that rich without a substantial amount of work, so I don't think any of them didn't work hard enough. However, I concluded that Carnegie was the hardest worker because he single-handedly managed his entire company, controlling the minute details and acting simultaneously as the owner and director of operations. Considering the sheer size of Carnegie Steel, this is an incredibly impressive feat. Carnegie was also self-educated, reflecting good motivation and an internal drive to work for his success. 

Where each of them came from is another interesting detail. Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Rockefeller all grew up poor, making Morgan the only one who was born with a slight advantage in wealth. Carnegie's family emigrated to the US from Scotland--He was the only one born outside of the US. More brownie points to him!! 

All of the men benefited from good timing and lucky opportunities, and they all stand out because of their ability to recognize and take advantage of available opportunities and current circumstances. Vanderbilt saw a need for efficient transportation, so he created the Staten Island Ferry... and then when that threatened to become obsolete, he found the newest, even more lucrative method of transportation: railroads! Carnegie also recognized a need for most efficiently produced steel, so he made it happen and struck it rich! JP Morgan saw the need for a leader in the world of investing, and he rose (and his nose) rose to the occasion. Rockefeller realized everyone was starting to build oil drills, but saw a void in the business of oil refinery, so he essentially obtained a monopoly in the industry! 

Perhaps the most obvious factor in each businessman's "goodness" is his contribution to charity. Vanderbilt was described in the documentary as having "little interest in charity." Boo. Rockefeller was a great benefactor in many different areas of philanthropy, as was Carnegie, who believed in giving away most of his money to charity before he died (how nice!). JP Morgan is listed on biography.com as a philanthropist, but no other details are given and it wasn't much mentioned in the video, leading me to believe that giving away millions was not one of his main hobbies. 

It's also worthwhile to mention each man's best traits emphasized in the documentary. Vanderbilt acknowledged the fact that good, reliable ferry and railroad services kept the customers coming back, so he sought to be the most efficient and reliable service available. Carnegie recognized the working-class struggle and became an advocate of worker rights. JP Morgan knew that the best way to get investors to trust him was to give them a reason to do so, so he made sure to ALWAYS make his investors a profit, proving himself as the most reliable, trustworthy financier out there. Rockefeller was highlighted for his extensive philanthropy.

Finally, I'll list each man's biggest shortcoming: Vanderbilt was extremely competitive and didn't always play fair when trying to prevent other companies from taking his business. Carnegie had a huge worker riot at his plant at Homestead, proving him to be somewhat of a hypocrite after he wrote all those books about worker rights. Morgan came off as vain and insanely power-hungry, and honestly just seemed like a downright unlikeable guy. Rockefeller was accused of creating artificial shortages to boost his profits, and also stood by the belief that his money was God-given and that he was rich because he deserved it--quite an entitled attitude if you ask me. 

Overall, I would say Andrew Carnegie deserves the title of "Nicest Captain of Industry," with Rockefeller in close second. J.P. Morgan definitely seems like the most manipulative, duplicitous character in the bunch, so I'd say he's the "Worst Robber Baron." Vanderbilt falls somewhere in the middle. 

What do you guys think?