7.04h Robber Barons vs Captains of Industry
The industrial capitalists of the late 19th century should be regarded “Robber Barons” for many reasons. One example was with religious places. Money corrupts anyone. Many people think that if they had that much power or money, then they’d only do good with it, and help everyone, but in the end, it corrupts them all. It’s human nature to want power and money and humans do what it takes to do so. One thing was that there was one church in pull man, and one-either of the population going to religious places on Sunday. The building was unoccupied though because no one could afford the rent on it. With all the Pullman owning everywhere, it didn’t help religion. The Presbyterians received $700 a year from the Presbyterian Board, and paid $600 of it over to the company for rent. Many thought that the company didn’t care much for them, just to get as much work out of them as possible. Another example is with the late czar of Russia. He wanted his people to be happy. He freed the serfs, abolished the knout, and didn’t raise a call for reform. Eventually his people took the initiative and took matters into their own hands. They governed themselves in the matter in order to try and resolve things. They all tried to get their own happiness. The loss of authority and distrust of the people is the fatal weakness of many systems of reform.
Industrial capitalists of the late 19th century were “Captains of Industry” for many reasons. There were a couple modes on the matter. The first was that the wealth of the parents would go to the first son, so that to insure that the family name be carried on. Some thought that this was bad because it depends on the children to take care of everything, and that in the end it hurts the state that they don’t get any and that it all goes to the first child. The second mode is leaving wealth at death to public use. The only downside to this is that the man’s money doesn’t do much until he is dead to help the population. Also, that it
Industrial capitalists of the late 19th century were “Captains of Industry” for many reasons. There were a couple modes on the matter. The first was that the wealth of the parents would go to the first son, so that to insure that the family name be carried on. Some thought that this was bad because it depends on the children to take care of everything, and that in the end it hurts the state that they don’t get any and that it all goes to the first child. The second mode is leaving wealth at death to public use. The only downside to this is that the man’s money doesn’t do much until he is dead to help the population. Also, that it