Attacks and celebrations have continued to characterize portraits of entrepreneurs such as Carnegie and Rockefeller. Some historians, following the lead of nineteenth-century critics, have depicted them as unscrupulous hypocrites who extolled the virtues of competition while ruthlessly crushing it. A lust for profits alone drove them, and they cared little for the needs of society, according to this portrait. The leaders of big business resembled nothing so much as medieval barons who had oppressed their serfs and robbed them of the fruits of their labors. Using corporations, trusts, and other devices, these nineteenth-century "robber barons" similarly exploited their workers and concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a relatively small elite. Such centralization, these historians argue, threatened the fundamentals of democracy.

Standing in sharp contrast to the image of business leaders as robber barons is the notion of them as "captains of industry." Some business historians, interested in examining the growth of industry, concede that the Rockefellers and Carnegies employed methods of doubtful morality. But in their eyes business leaders were not greedy robber barons. Instead they are depicted as industrial statesmen whose creativity and ambition helped to promote an economy of mass-produced abundance. Still other business historians have shown little interest in questions of morality or the tension between democracy and economic concentration. They emphasize less the people than the processes by which new strategies, structures, and forms of doing business increased efficiency and productivity.

1			To get a sense of the anger that the leading industrialists of the Gilded Age could inspire in their contemporaries, read the "Story of a Great Monopoly." What charges did the author of this article level against Vanderbilt? What evidence did he use to support his claims? Did he draw anything positive from Vanderbilt's achievements? If so, what? http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/1881mar/monopoly.htm Now read the sections of this contemporary article addressing the accomplishments of the leading industrialists of the Gilded Age. What conclusions, if any, does this author draw about the benefits these men did or did not provide for American society? Does he perceive them as robber barons or as captains of industry? After reading these documents, how do you perceive them? Why? http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/carnegie/delong_moscow_paper2.html