FREE ESSAY ON WAS JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER A ROBBER BARON?

WAS JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER A ROBBER BARON?

PART ONE - Issue #2: Was John D. Rockefeller a Robber Baron?
A "robber baron" was someone who employed any means necessary to enrich themselves at the
expense of their competitors. Did John D. Rockefeller fall into that category or was he
one of the "captains of industry", whose shrewd and innovative leadership brought order
out of industrial chaos and generated great fortunes that enriched the public welfare
through the workings of various philanthropic agencies that these leaders established? In
the early 1860s Rockefeller was the founder of the Standard Oil Company, who came to
epitomize both the success and excess of corporate capitalism. His company was based in
northwestern Pennsylvania.
A major question historians have disagreed on has been whether or not John D. Rockefeller
was a so-called "robber baron". Matthew Josephson agreed that Rockefeller was indeed a
"robber baron". In the book Taking Sides, He claims that Rockefeller was a deceptive and
conspiratorial businessman, whose fortune was built by secret agreements and wrung
concessions from America's leading railroad companies (Taking Sides 25).
When John D. Rockefeller merged with the railroad companies, he had gained control of a
strategic transportation route that no other companies would be able to use. Rockefeller
would then be able to force the hand on the railroads and was granted a rebate on his
shipments of oil. This was a kind of secret agreement between the two industries. None of
the competition knew what the rates were for the rebates or the rates that Rockefeller
was paying the railroad. This made it hard for the competition to keep up with the
Standard Oil Company. The consequences led to many oil companies getting bought out by
Rockefeller secretly. All in all, 25 companies surrendered to Rockefeller's relentless
expansion, which was 20% of the oil industry in America.
John D. Rockefeller and his comrades had stolen a long march on their 
3
opponents, their tactics shaped themselves already as giant industrialists of the future
conquering the pigmies. Josephson said, "Entrenched at the narrows of the mighty river of
petroleum, they could no more be dislodged than those other barons, who had planted their
castles along the Rhine"(Taking Sides 35). 
Ralph W. Hidey and Muriel E. Hidey disagreed with Josephson. In the book Taking Sides,
They believe that John D. Rockefeller and his associates created and applied a system for
operating a large integrated industrial enterprise, which was one of the earliest
representatives of Big Business. He contributed to the development of American petroleum
industry and through it to the growth of the economy.
The Hidey's believed that Rockefeller's greatest contribution, beyond the concept of
Standard Oil combination itself, was the persuasion of strong men to join the alliance
and to work together effectively in its management.
Oil policies went deep into the personalities and early experiences of Rockefeller and
his colleagues. They had heightened uncertainty and speculation about their activities by
their secrecy in building the alliance and by their evasive and legal testimony on the
witness stand. There tended to be aroused antagonism because the very newness and size
dominance, and efficiency of the combination. The antagonism also ran as far as the
absorption of Rockefeller's competitors in adversity and its search for the lowest
possible railroad rates. The Standard Oil Company has done great work in the sense that
oil refining has been simply reduced to a business and transportation. The Standard Oil
Company brought a measure of order to a formerly confused industry.
Anton Chaitkin agreed that John D. Rockefeller was indeed a robber baron of his time. In
Treason of America, he disputes his argument by stating that in the 1860's Rockefeller
ruthlessly consolidated oil refineries and oil-carrying railroads so as to create a giant
trust known as Standard Oil. This trust controlled nearly all the oil in America. The
monopolization of oil was very difficult to maintain for Rockefeller because many
reformists were making allegations to right the wrongs of Standard Oil. Twice, the
company was taken to the Supreme Court and dissolved. Rockefeller was vilified in the
press and in popular literature as perhaps no other figure in American history has been
vilified (Chiatkin 327).
However, there appeared to be other reformers that came to his rescue by informing him
about what he could do with his money to get the attackers of his back. These reformers
were advisors to Rockefeller, so he could keep his money well invested and out of the
publics grasp.
In the article, "Study in Power: John D. Rockefeller, Industrialist and Philanthropist",
Vincent P. Carosso believed that Rockefeller was not a robber baron. He goes on to say
that Rockefeller lived in a time of constant and rapid change and worked in an industry,
which in his day grew from insignificant to an indispensable element in the world
economy. His capacity was laid in planning and organization. This played in the
development of vertical integration when it was still a novelty in business. As a young
bookkeeper, Rockefeller learned he had an infinite capacity for detail. Wisdom of seeing
what lies ahead and the ability to choose competent and energetic subordinates were two
characteristics of his foresight. The ability to integrate and exercise effective control
over numerous and widespread functions of his enterprise classified Rockefeller as a rare
business genius (The American Historical Review 158). Also, with all the profits he was
seeking John D. Rockefeller still managed to donate a half billion dollars to good causes
and established a model for all philanthropists who followed.
In the textbook, America Past and Present, the authors portrayed John D. Rockefeller as a
robber baron. He imposed order on the industry and had an ambition to build. Competition
was wasteful and small-scale enterprise was inefficient. Consolidation was the path of
the future because it revolutionized the way of doing business all over the world.
Rockefeller was a man of religious beliefs, but he lacked charm, due to his distant and
taciturn attitude. Anything that could increase profit Rockefeller would act on. Even if
it was to reduce the number of drops of solder on kerosene by one penny could bring in
more money at less cost. He always had the highest quality for the lowest price.
As a result Rockefeller's success, the first of modern trusts were born. This innovation
started a trust movement in the lead, whiskey, and sugar industries. Trusts were known to
be associated more with monopoly. This angered the public and sparked protest among the
reformers.
In the book The Rockefeller Files, by Gary Allen, Rockefeller is viewed as a robber
baron. When John D. Rockefeller was coming close to monopolizing the oil industry, one of
his most effective ploys was to capture a competitor from the inside. He would place his
men inside a competitor's office, or bribe employees of other firms to do his bidding(
Allen 155). Today, John D.'s descendants now play the same game with our government. In
1894, Rockefeller's corrupt influence started in the White House.
CRITIQUE SECTION
I disagreed with Matthew Josephson because I believe that the only way to get ahead in
business is to buy out your competition. Rockefeller was trying to monopolize the oil
industry and he was going about it the right way, by building a partnership with the
railroad company. 
I agreed with the Hidey's points because Rockefeller was one of the main contributors to
the big business boom. The alliances the Standard Oil Company made the competition
disintegrate. Rockefeller revolutionized business by joining two businesses together that
coincide with one another, which was oil and the railroad. Together they helped the
economy flourish.
I agreed with Vincent P. Carosso because in the time Rockefeller was living there were
rapid changes due to his success. He was a major factor in the world's economy, which
goes far beyond the barriers of the robber baron. The innovations Rockefeller was a part
of still have foundation in today's economy. 
I disagreed with Anton Chiatkin because monopolization is what a businessman wants to
ultimately achieve. That was the view of John D. Rockefeller. Chiatkin believed that
monopolization was all that was wrong with American business. The jealousy of the public
interfered with the overall monopolization of the oil-railroad industry, which made it
impossible to accomplish.
I disagreed with the textbook; written by Divine, Breen, Fredrickson and Williams;
because in big business every little penny counts when you are trying to monopolize it.
Every advantage, no matter how slim it may be, means something. As long as the product
appeals to the overwhelming majority the business will thrive a great deal.
I agreed with Gary Allen because I feel everyone can be bought with the right amount of
money. This showed Rockefeller's enormous power despite his absence from the political
realm. Sometimes you have to take desperate measures in order to succeed. The way he
bought out competitors may have been sneaky, but in the end it still got the job done.
In conclusion, I disagreed that John D. Rockefeller was a "robber baron". He was more of
an innovator of business. The doors to new ways of successful entrepreneurships and
partnerships will be forever indebted to the ideas of John D. Rockefeller. In the 1870' s
the economy was booming because of the so-called robber baron's ambitions to build. Today
the economy has permanent scars of the great businessman. Whether or not the public
thought he was ruthless and dispassionate, it did not justify his enormous
accomplishments for the economy. Success and riches measured his ideas. Some of his
tactics were conniving and deceitful, but that is what money can do to some people. The
people that complain about his sneaky ways just do not understand because they were never
and will never be exposed to probably one thousandth of his money. The fact that he had
over 900 million dollars when he retired proved that he was probably one of the most
prominent businessmen in American history, if not the most prominent.
PART TWO- Issue # 10: Was the New Deal an Effective Answer to the Great Depression?
The catastrophe that occurred, in 1929, because of the Wall Street debacle crippled the
American economy, deflated the optimistic future most Americans assumed to be their
birthright and ripped apart the values by which the country's businesses, farms, and
governments were run. In the 1920s the whirlwind of the boom economy was no longer
present. During the next decade the inertia effect of the Great Depression stifled
Americans attempts to make ends meet. By 1932 over 9 million people would be unemployed,
but Franklin D. Roosevelt was the newly elected president and had a plan to give
Americans some relief from this Great Depression, by issuing the New Deal.
A major question that historians have disagreed on has been whether or not the New Deal
was an effective answer to the Great Depression. Roger Biles of Taking Sides, agreed that
Roosevelt's proposal was effective. It did not get America out of depression, but it
implanted many stabilizers to avert another such depression(Taking Sides 221). Although
many New Deal programs were temporary emergencies; like the Glass-Steagull Act, which
forced the separation of commercial and investment banking; others lingered long after
the return to prosperity. The New Deal was impressive in relief and social welfare
programs, but they never went as far as demanded or recommended. It achieved much that
was good, but left much undone. Frequently path breaking in their delivery of federal
resources, outside normal channels also retained a strong commitment to local government
and community control, while promising only temporary disruptions prior to the return of
economic stability.
Gary Dean Beast disagreed with Briles on the issue. He feels as though the New Deal was a
tragic failure to recover from the depression during the eight peace time years. There
were certainly positive contributions under the New Deal, but they may not have
outweighed the negative. This does not fall squarely on the shoulders of Roosevelt. The
actions of Congress and the Supreme Court in nullifying, modifying and rejecting many
proposals of the New Deal are good examples of how the President was not entirely at
fault(Taking Sides 237). If Congress and the Supreme Court implemented these actions,
maybe the depression would not have lasted so long.
In the book, A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn disagreed that the New
Deal had an impact that led America out of depression. When the New Deal was over,
capitalism remained intact. The rich still controlled the nation's wealth as well as its
laws, courts, police, etc. This made Roosevelt look like a hero to millions, but the same
system that brought depression and crisis remained (Zinn 395).
John A. Garrity, who wrote "The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression",
did not believe that the New Deal was effective to the depression. It was marked by
vacillation, confusion, and contradictions; by in frightening within the administration,
bureaucracies, by an absence of any consistently held theory about either the causes of
depression or how to end it. The New Dealers failed to arrive at any real consensus about
the origins and nature of the economic concentration. Roosevelt's inconsistency was
apolitical asset rather than a liability. He masterfully disguised the inadequacies and
internal disagreements in his entourage and to a remarkable extent succeeded in
convincing the Americans of their own personal wisdom (Garrity 920). 
In the textbook, America Past and Present, there is a strong sense that Roosevelt was
successful with the New Deal proposals. After winning the election in 1932, he pledged to
the American people a New Deal. In the first hundred days in office F.D.Roosevelt sent 15
major requests to Congress and received 15 pieces of legislation. Most of them were
temporary though. 
The New Deal was more successful in meeting the most immediate problems-relief for
millions of unemployed and destitute citizens. Congress was requested to distribute 500
million dollars to the families in need. The Work Progress Administration was established
to put the unemployed on a federal payroll, so they could stimulate the stagnant economy.
This helped ease the burden of unemployment, but it failed to overcome the depression.
Despite his limitations as a reformer Roosevelt was the president the American people
needed because of the psychological lift that helped them endure the Great Depression.
CRITIQUE SECTION
I disagreed with Roger Biles, who believed the New Deal was effective in getting America
out of depression. The fact that most of the programs never went as far as needed really
does not seem like America was coming out of the depression. If the requests employed by
Roosevelt were met only halfway then I would say it is unsuccessful in bringing the
country back to stability.
I agreed with Gary Dean Best because he says that the New Deal was a complete and tragic
failure. I do not think that Roosevelt was at fault for not recovering from the
depression, rather the other two branches of the government, who would not settle on
terms with the President in most cases. 
I agreed with Howard Zinn because the only people the New Deal managed to help out of
depression were the rich folks. The lower classes did not have the luxuries of the upper
class, so they suffered through the depression. Blacks and women were two groups that
remained fairly stagnant during the Roosevelt era. The country as a whole then, was not
out of depression as the New Deal had planned,
I agreed with John Garrity because the New Deal era was a time of mass confusion between
government and the people. There was no solution to ending the depression. Roosevelt
seemed to always be working around the problem, giving the people false hopes because of
his masterfully disguised inadequacies.
I disagreed with the textbook because I do not think the first hundred days were
productive at all. The majority of the requests passed were only temporary. Being that it
was only the first hundred days of office for Roosevelt, the temporary requests would not
last long enough to effectively bring America back to prosperity.
In conclusion, I disagreed that Roosevelt's New Deal was an effective answer to the Great
Depression. There were really no long-term affects that the plan had guaranteed. Some of
the acts passed were helpful in trying to become economically stable again, but were
short-lived and faded out of the picture fast. The reason for Roosevelt's failure was his
idea to restore the economy and not to change it ( Divine Breen Fredrickson Williams
810). Obviously there was no way of ever going back to the way the economy used to be. I
think Roosevelt's lack of radicalism was his failure in reforming the economy. He was not
totally at fault says Gary Dean Best because the other branches of government were not
being any more radical than the president. The New Deal was a reform and recovery
movement, which should have been a radical one. There were no extreme measures taken by
Roosevelt to get America out of the Great Depression. The various acts that were passed
were insignificant to the overall well being of the nation's economy. The only thing that
saved the nation's economy was the Second World War. The war boom sparked industry and
jobs and soon enough brought America back into the realm of prosperity.
PART THREE- Issue #16: Will History Forgive Richard Nixon?
During the years from 1968-1973, Richard Nixon became an icon in American history. His
reign as President will go down as one of the most controversial terms in the twentieth
century. He was the only president to ever resign from office because of corruption and
conspiracy. The scandals that involved the Nixon campaign are the most publicly known out
of all the other presidents.
A major question historians have disagreed on has been whether history will forgive the
former President Nixon. Joan Hoff-Wilson agreed that Richard M. Nixon had paid his debt
to society and should be forgiven by history. The real importance of Nixon's presidency
may well come to rest on his attempts to restructure the executive branch along
functional lines, to bring order to the federal bureaucracy, and to achieve lasting
domestic reform. The degree to which those Nixonian tactics that were legal and ethical
became consciously or unconsciously the model for his successors in the Oval Office will
determine his final place in history.
Although Nixon's corporate presidency remains publicly discredited, much of it has been
privately preserved. Nixon's ability to survive disaster may make up for his lack of
charisma and honesty in the long run. His management style and substantive foreign and
domestic achievements look better and better when compared with the presidents to
follow.
Stanley I Kutler disagreed with Joan Hoff-Wilson. He said that Nixon should not be
forgiven by history. His ruthless and corrupt scandals, throughout his presidency, give
him no grounds to which he should be looked upon as a respectable president. The quote,
"I am not a crook", is one of the most ironic statements in presidential history. His
first four years as President was just the beginning of the scandals to come. Kutler
described how Nixon gradually reached his own demise through the presidency. Each year he
would get a little more scandalous. His neglect for his wife while in office also showed
the people that he was so caught up in conspiring that he did not even have time to
celebrate his wife's own birthday. The Haldeman tapes gave the public a side of the
President never seen before. What was shown beyond dispute was that the Nixon of the
Watergate years-furtive, manipulative and petty; often weak, and above all dishonest-was
consistent with the behavior patterns of the earlier years. There was only one Nixon
(Taking Sides 377).
In the book, Conspiracies, Cover-Ups, and Crimes by Jonathan Vankin agreed that Nixon was
not to be forgiven by American history. It is no coincidence that most of Watergate's
shadow players dwell in the same conspiratorial world that led the Bay of Pigs (Vankin
157). Nixon instigated the Bay of Pigs during the Eisenhower administration, so one can
see Nixon was scandalous before he even became president. Nixon also had mob ties, which
led to his pardons of a certain Teamster boss, by the name of Jimmy Hoffa. Vankin showed
a mob affiliated President who has no reason to be forgiven by history.
In the article " Presidential Manipulation of Polls and Public Opinion: The Nixon
Administration and the Pollsters", by Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro, there is
strong disagreement that former President Nixon should be forgiven by American history.
His influence on the manipulation of the public pollsters, Luis Harris and the Gallup
organization was very negative. The public was very favorable to the pollsters, who did
not favor Nixon, so he decided to corrupt the polls. The democratic ties that Harris had
enraged Nixon even more. This started an investigation of pollsters issued by Nixon to
slow Harris and the Gallup organization down. By doing this Nixon took his unpopularity
out of the public eye (Jacobs Shapiro 521).
The textbook did not agree that President Nixon should be forgiven for all his acts of
deceit while holding office. The text takes a good look at Nixon's blunder during the
Vietnam War campaign. It was one foreign policy challenge he could not overcome. His
tactics were hard-line bombing and gradual withdrawal of troops. This did not serve to be
effective because people back on the home front were demonstrating and protesting because
of the massive attacks in Cambodia that Nixon had called for. This led to the Kent State
massacre. Nixon's failure to show sympathy during the aftermath outraged the public. He
had to devise another tactic that would put an end to the war and preserve peace back
home as well. Finally the North Vietnamese and the US came to an agreement. It was really
a disguised surrender and made the country look like the quagmire of Southeast Asia (
Divine Breen Fredrickson Williams 979).
In the book by John Osborne, The Fifth Year of the Nixon Watch, there is disagreement
with the fact that Nixon should be forgiven by American history. The book states that in
his fifth year of presidency, he was looked upon by the public and the political realm,
to resign, because it would be for his own country's good. This was right after the
Watergate scandal had blown up in the Republicans face. The scandal of Watergate was
members of Nixon's cabinet and associates were to spy on the Democratic Party in their
headquarters. There were several tapes and other scandalous information, which led to the
eventual leakage of the whole thing. The public now viewed Nixon as a shoddy type and not
worthy of the presidency (Osborne 187).
CRITIQUE SECTION
I disagreed with Joan Hoff-Wilson because I do not believe President Nixon did anything
to promote a positive example in running the government. He lacked charisma and honesty
(Taking Sides 369), which is vital when you are leading a country. If you cannot trust
the President of the United States, whom can you trust?
I agreed with Stanley I. Kutler because Nixon was overly consumed by public relations. He
was so caught up with trying to spin stories around so he would look good, protecting his
image and denying any truths that would tarnish that image (Taking Sides 370). Nixon
behaved in the same manner all five years he was President, feeling no remorse for his
deceiving acts.
I agreed with Jonathan Vankin because Nixon's involvement in the mob was not commendable
by any means. His schemes that he put together with teamsters did not show any class of a
true President. The pardon of Nixon, after he resigned, was a sign of just how sorry of a
President he really was. The feeling of discontent would haunt him for the rest of his
life. The public's strong and harsh criticisms would remain until the day he died.
I agreed with Jacobs and Shapiro because manipulation was one of the many corrupt
attributes of Richard Nixon, and to be forgiven with so many of them is highly doubtful
by the majority of the public. Manipulative leadership appeals to momentary popular
emotions and is motivated by the drive to augment personal power. Nixon's relations with
the pollsters illustrate the model of manipulative leadership the authors described.
I agreed with the textbook because Nixon's lack of effort towards ending the Vietnam War
showed how much he cared for himself and not the country. All the American casualties of
the War and the demonstrations on the home front magnified his failure. Also the
disguised surrender was not covert enough to where the people did not know what was going
on. The morale of the country after that was not good. 
I agreed with John Osborne because the resignation of Richard Nixon was inevitable or he
would have been impeached. Nixon resigned because he had no more secrets to hide. All the
scandalous events that had taken place during his presidency were exposed. The press had
a field day with Nixon after the resignation and up to the day he died.
In conclusion, I disagreed that Richard Nixon should be forgiven by American history for
his ruthless reign in the Oval Office. His corrupt and scheming ways are the ways of the
devil. I think he showed no leadership for a country, which was in the midst of many
controversies. President Nixon only added to those controversies and made them more
complicated. I think Nixon should go down in history as the worst President to ever hold
office at the White House. He had set an awful example of the Republican Party and it
would not recover from his disgraces for quite some time. 
I think for the crimes that Nixon committed, he should have gone to prison for because he
did not commit crimes against one person, he committed crimes against one country. 
Bibliography
Allen, Gary. The Rockefeller File. Seal Beach, CA: 76 Press, 1991
Best, Gary Dean. "Pride Prejudice and Politics: Roosevelt Versus Recovery" Taking 
Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History. eds. Larry 
Madaras et al. Guilford CT: Dushkin/ McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Biles, Roger. "A New Deal for the American People". Taking 
Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History. eds. Larry 
Madaras et al. Guilford CT: Dushkin/ McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Chiatkin, Anton. Treason in America. Washington DC: Executive Intelligence 
Review, 1989. 
Divine, Breen, Frederickson and Williams. America Past and Present. Fifth Edition Vol 
2, New York: Longman, 1999.
Hidey, Ralph W. and Muriel E. "History of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey),Vol 1: 
Pioneering in Big Business" " Taking Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in
American History. eds. Larry Madaras et al. Guilford CT: Dushkin/ McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Hoff-Wilson, Joan. "Richard M. Nixon: The CorporatePresidency" Taking 
Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History. eds. Larry 
Madaras et al. Guilford CT: Dushkin/ McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Josephson, Matthew. "The Robber Barons : The Great American Capitalists" Taking 
Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History. eds. Larry 
Madaras et al. Guilford CT: Dushkin/ McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Kutler, Stanley I. "Et Tu Bob?" Taking Sides Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in 
American History. eds. Larry Madaras et al. Guilford CT: Dushkin/ McGraw-Hill, 1997.
Osborne, John. The Fifth Year of the Nixon Watch. New York: Liveright Press, 1974.
Vankin, Jonathan. Conspiracies, Cover-Ups and Crimes. Lilburn, Georgia: IllumniNet 
Press, 1996.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present. New York: Harper 
Perrenial,1995.