The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America

Product Description

The Myth of the Robber Barons describes the role of key entrepreneurs in the economic growth of the United States from 1850 to 1910. The entrepreneurs studied are Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, Charles Schwab, and the Scranton family. Most historians argue that these men, and others like them, were Robber Barons. The story, however, is more complicated. The author, Burton Folsom, divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power. By 1910, the U. S. dominated the world in oil, steel, and railroads led by Rockefeller, Schwab (and Carnegie), and Hill. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn in the side of the market entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products. The author describes this clash of the market entrepreneurs and the political entrepreneurs. In the Mellon chapter, the author describes how Andrew Mellon an entrepreneur in oil and aluminum became Secretary of Treasury under Coolidge. In office, Mellon was the first American to practice supply-side economics. He supported cuts on income tax rates for all groups. The rate cut on the wealthiest Americans, from 73 percent to 25 percent, freed up investment capital and led to American economic growth during the 1920s. Also, the amount of revenue into the federal treasury increased sharply after tax rates were cut. The Myth of the Robber Barons has separate chapters on Vanderbilt, Hill, Schwab, Mellon, and the Scrantons. The author also has a conclusion, in which he looks at the textbook bias on the subject of Robber Barons and the rise of the U. S. in the late 1800s. This chapter explores three leading college texts in U. S. history and shows how they misread American history and disparage market entrepreneurs instead of the political entrepreneurs. This book is in its fifth edition, and is widely adopted in college and high school classrooms across the U. S.

Customer Reviews

Burton Hit the Nail on the Head!
I heard Burton Folsom speak about two years ago and found him to be a fascinating and scholarly man. His books do not disappoint! This book helped me to correct much of the nonsense that I have been taught in school. He even has the audacity to give capitalism a good name in this age of unbridled rush toward socialism. Keep those books coming Professor Folsom!

---

Interesting biographic essays, false title
Professor Folsom has written an informative book on selected entrepreneurs from the Gilded Age as well as on Andrew Mellon and his lower tax initiatives in the 1920s. [The book was published by the Young Americans Foundation (Motto: The Conservative Movement Starts Here.) Folsom's book is featured for sale on the YAF home web page with a picture of Glen Beck.] It provides a far different perspective on what some call the era of the `Robber Barons.' As such, it provides useful insights that differs sharply from what is described in Matthew Josephson's The Robber Barons (1934), Who Built America? (Volume 2, From the Gilded Age to the Present (1992), an American Social History Project), H. W. Brands' The Reckless Decade: America in the 1890s (1995) [see my Amazon review], and Jack Beatty's Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900 (2007).

Historically it is seldom professional to characterize an era by a pejorative label such as "robber baron." This phrase was pasted on the 1865-1900 period of U. S. economic development by Mr. Josephson, who was writing during the aftermath of the Great Depression. Many of the most popular U. S. history text books have applied this simplistic characterization to the rough-and-tumble economic development in post-Civil War America.

Like many others, I had, until recently, thought that Josephson had coined this phrase. In fact, it dates back to medieval Europe. Barons along the Rhine, violating the right to impose tariffs by the Holy Roman Emperor, arbitrarily taxed vessels on the Rhine within their baronial domains. Eventually these arbitrary fiscal measures prompted a backlash. The Rhine League was created in 1254.It's simple expedient was to seize and destroy the castles of about a dozen barons. Problem solved. [Hmmm-did anyone suggest a Rhine League to the TARP committee?] Regarding the Gilded Age, the term `robber baron' is traced back to an 1880 anti-monopoly pamphlet in which Kansas farmers targeted railroad magnates.

Professor Folsom chooses to ignore the vast literature on a period that experienced remarkable economic growth, while also experiencing two sustained economic depressions. He also does not acknowledge the brutal labor strife that included the Railroads Strikes of 1877, the Haymarket Massacre, the Homestead Strike, and the Pullman fracas. Instead, he focuses on six `uplifting' success stories. He writes laudatory biographic essays on Commodore Vanderbilt, James T. Hill, the Scrantons, Charles Schwab, John D. Rockefeller, and Andrew Mellon.

He tells an important story of how individual entrepreneurs, through perseverance and risk taking, contributed mightily to catapulting America into the top manufacturing and agricultural rank globally. Often this resulted from vision and a determination to greatly expand production, while sharply cutting production and consumer costs. Vanderbilt, for example, broke a steamship monopoly by, without any government subsidy, constructing better ships and offering sharp discounts to consumers. He also, again without government subsidy, greatly enhanced boat travel to California. However, there is no indication that Vanderbilt could have written the following letter: "Gentlemen: You have undertaken to cheat me. I won't sue you, for the law is too slow. I will ruin you. Yours truly, Cornelius Vanderbilt."

I agree with Folsom that James J. Hill was the rare railroader of the period who, without government subsidies, constructed an excellent railroad system. Folsom provides extensive descriptions of the shenanigans of less scrupulous railroaders. His essay on the Scrantons is a marvelous insight into decent people who took massive risks in creating what he describes as "America's first manufacturing city." He captures the spirit of Charles Schwab, from his great successes to his ultimate downfall.

I am puzzled as to why Professor Folsom includes Andrew Mellon in his pantheon of big business giants. Certainly Mellon fits this role. However, most of this biographic essay focuses on Mellon's efforts to reduce taxes during the 1920s. My sense is that this relates more to the Republican agenda and supply side economics than it does to the 19th century Gilded Age.

I recommend this book as an important insight into some of the positive aspects of the rough-and-tumble entrepreneurship of the late 19th century. However, it does not cause me to alter my introduction to students to Irwin Unger's chapter THE TRIUMPH OF INDUSTRIALISM: What Were the Causes, What We the Costs?

I introduced my students to the Gilded Age in 2009 with:

"Something to THINK About

An era in which:
* The courts and the federal administration gave corporations a free hand to do almost anything they wished;
* Banks, through ineptness, greed, and criminal actions, came close to destroying the U. S. financial system;
* Bribery at the federal, state, and local level was so prevalent that it seemed difficult to find an honest politician;
* The federal and state administration, as well as Congress and the Supreme Court, showed scant respect for the rights (and, often, lives) of the common people;
* Some of the largest businesses engaged in massive fraud and deception that continued for years without any significant government intervention;
* Some of the new rich became rich beyond one's wildest imagination--a few achieved this with `relatively clean hands;' others bought politicians and others as if they were commodities in the market place.
* The economy spiraled into a free fall with a number of experts forecasting a prolonged economic depression.
* Wars, that were casually started, soon resulted in a quagmire.

This could be written about 2009. In fact, I am summarizing much of the content of our chapter on the U. S. economy 1870-1900. Two positive differences: in the early 21st century federal and state troops did not intervene in strikes and shoot to kill or wound strikers and the Supreme Court did not uphold such actions."

---

Restoration of original history is now consider revisionist????
I now find it interesting that the restoration of knowledge of what actually happened is now considered revisionist history by those who have conveniently produced the present consensus view of history as if a consensus view of history will ever actually produce an accurate history. Isn't it strange how reestablishing the original history as it actually happened can be considered revisionist? Read and decide for yourself. Don't take my word or anyone else's. Get to the original sources and see what happened and how these "robber baron's" worked toward building a better tomorrow for the U.S.A; economically, environmentally and culturally. Don't confuse their progressive children who took what was given to them and did great harm to our country as those who are those being discussed within this book.

---

Great Business History
I really enjoyed this business history and felt that the author clearly refuted some common wisdom.

---

more misdirection...
A Good read, research is scholarly! However each of the " Barons " worked smart and never "finished school." (well morgan had an humanities background ) they wouldn't been able to understand their unique ride to that " quick " mountain top perspective other than it's always money, economics and the control of resources in this life...attribute success to religious ideology and attempt to right a " wrong " with philanthropy...i'm not attempting to point out this is right or wrong. But a read for those whose studies are paticulaly through.

---