The Men Who Built America: Andrew Carnegie
Introduction
Although he provided the material to build most of America’s first skyscrapers, not many people recognize his name. Originally from Scotland, Andrew Carnegie became one of the richest men in America through his steel business, Carnegie Steel Company. Even though he claimed to support workers’ rights, Carnegie was anti-union and provided poor working conditions for his employees. While Carnegie donated the majority of his wealth at his death, this did not change the public's perception of him. Andrew Carnegie, a robber baron of the 19th century, was a corrupt businessman who worked his employees to the bone in an effort to become the richest man in America.
Carnegie’s Early Life
Andrew Carnegie was born on November 25, 1835, in Dunfermline, Scotland. He spent the first year of his life in a weaver’s cottage which only had one room. At age two, Carnegie’s family moved to a larger house. The Carnegie family immigrated to the United States and settled in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania when he was 12. After immigrating, Carnegie and his father were both offered a job at Anchor Cotton Mills, earning $1.20 a week ($35 in today's money). Due to conditions at the mill, Carnegie’s father’s health declined, leaving his son to be the family’s sole breadwinner. At age 16, Carnegie was hired by the Ohio Telegraph Company and earned $2.50 per week ($77). He was a hard worker and the company promoted him to operator within a year. At age 18, Thomas Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company hired Carnegie as his personal secretary. Scott became a role model and mentor to Carnegie, guiding Carnegie’s later business decisions until Scott’s death. Carnegie was promoted to Superintendent of the Western Division of the Pennsylvania railroad at the age of 24. This increased Carnegie’s salary by nearly 350%.
Carnegie’s newfound access to money and his personal connection to Scott allowed him to become an early investor in many American companies. In 1864, at the age of 29, Carnegie was one of the first investors in the Columbia Oil Company, which yielded over one million dollars in cash dividends to its investors. Carnegie worked with others in establishing a steel rolling mill, and steel production became the main source for his wealth. In 1884, Carnegie married Louise Whitfield, who was 21 years his junior. Eleven years later, they had their only child, Margaret. Carnegie died at age 83 on August 11, 1919 in Lenox, Massachusetts.
The Rise of Carnegie Steel Company
Carnegie acquired his fortune through the steel business, controlling most of the steel mills in the United States. In 1870, Carnegie co-founded his first steel business outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1892, Carnegie created Carnegie Steel Company. Carnegie owned other companies including Lucy Furnaces, The Union Mill, and Keystone Bridge Works. Through his ownership of these companies, Carnegie used vertical integration to control every aspect of the steel business--from the production of the raw materials at the mills, to distribution of steel, to the transportation networks, and finally, the actual building projects. Carnegie, through Keystone, provided much of the steel for the Eads Bridge, which spanned the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri. Carnegie Steel Company also produced steel for railroads and the new “skyscrapers” that were taking over America’s skylines. In addition to vertical integration, another one of Carnegie’s greatest innovations was the cheap mass production of steel.
In 1901, Carnegie was 66 and considering retirement. J.P Morgan, America’s most prominent banker, was a friend of Carnegie and was impressed with the steel empire he created. Morgan thought that if he owned the Carnegie Steel Company, he could cut costs, lower prices, produce steel in greater numbers, and raise wages for workers. On March 2, 1901, Morgan purchased Carnegie Steel Company from Carnegie for nearly $500 million and renamed it U.S Steel Corporation. After retiring from U.S. Steel, Carnegie and J.D Rockefeller, owner of Standard Oil, competed to see who could donate the most money to charity. Carnegie donated over $350 million of his wealth to libraries and institutions of higher learning, but died thirteen years before Rockefeller, losing the competition. While these donations did not change the opinion of many of his former steelworkers, some historians consider him a philanthropist.
Carnegie the Robber Baron
The men of the 19th and 20th centuries are considered one of two things. The first is a captain of industry, which means a business leader whose personal wealth contributed positively to the country. The second is a robber baron. A robber baron is a businessman who has become rich through ruthless and cruel business practices, like Carnegie. Carnegie is a robber baron for multiple reasons. Although not the most infamous of robber barons, Carnegie was notorious for being anti-union and treating his employees poorly. The life of a Carnegie Steel Company worker was grueling. Carnegie’s employees often slaved away in unsafe and filthy conditions. Moreover, he forced employees to work twelve-hour shifts, Monday through Saturday, and permitted few, if any, holidays. The demanding schedule drained the life out of employees as workers often did not eat or rest for more than ten minutes per day. Carnegie also made the ill-informed decision to hire Henry Frick as chairman of his company. Frick was a ruthless businessman whose only motivation was making profits. The company’s working conditions deteriorated even further under Frick. Steelworkers, already working long hours, now had to work Sundays under Frick. It was not unusual for July 4th to be the only holiday for Carnegie Steel Company employees. While Carnegie’s steel mills became more efficient and profitable under Frick, it came at a heavy human cost. Conditions deteriorated to a point in 1892 when Carnegie steelworkers went on strike at the Homestead plant in Homestead, Pennsylvania. Carnegie and Frick called in Pinkerton police to break up the strikers but their involvement only led to the death of multiple workers and Pinkerton agents.
Conclusion
A robber baron of his time, Carnegie gained a personal fortune due to the back-breaking labor of his steel mill workers. Although he contributed to the building of America’s early bridges and skyscrapers, his accomplishments came at great costs to his employees, who toiled long hours in poor conditions. In his journey to becoming a captain of American industry, Carnegie earned a reputation as a leader with little empathy for his workers. Although Carnegie attempted to salvage his reputation with millions in charitable donations, his late in life gesture did not change his reputation as a ruthless 19th century businessman.
1094 Words
Hey, LZ! I read this months ago, too XD
I remember reading through this the first time, and I love it now just as much as I did then. Lol I reread my review and it was so short and cheesy XD It's still a very interesting piece, and I really need to read some of your other historical essays.
#socialweek
If you'd like to criticize influential historical figures, I've got a list waiting for you! XD
Hey there! It's Vilnius with a review. For this, I was more focused on historical content than I was grammar or structure, so... if you're looking for a grammar/structure critique, I'd recommend someone else's review.
Overall, I found this to be a very informative and interesting read. I've often considered many industrial men of America's past devils in their own right, but I learned a bit about Carnegie's inhumane and (now) unlawful treatment of workers. And his donation war with Rockefeller is not only ridiculous, amoral, and unethical, but it was a disgrace that society allowed it to continue.
I'd recommend this to history-following friends, giving it a 4/5 review as I would have loved some more detailed accounts of his cruelty and harsh treatment of workers.
Have a nice [*insert time of day*]!
Hey there LZ! Tuck here with a review for you 
You made some really strong points throughout this essay. Your thesis statement, introduction, and conclusion were all impressively well-written and had a strong, clear point. There's very little that I could nitpick to improve there; it was a very strong beginning and end to your point.
The middle, however, was lacking in structure and focus. In regards to structure, I felt that the bolded titles disrupted your essay and made the transitions clunkier. The essay would be much more smooth if you were to remove them and organically transition from place to place. Rather than a persuasive essay, this felt much like a Wikipedia article that sought to convey information rather than persuade readers of a point.
In regards to focus, there were several sentences that didn't serve to persuade the reader of your thesis. Every single sentence should work to reinforce and prove your thesis statement, which in your case is the idea that Andrew Carnegie was a robber baron who earned his wealth by exploiting his workers. That is an excellent thesis: it's provable by fact, it's narrow enough that you'll easily be able to explore it, and still broad enough for you to have room to maneuver. However, you deviate from that in several places. For example, Carnegie's entire upbringing isn't necessary to this. Rather than giving a year-by-year summary of Carnegie's early life, you could connect each one to a single main point, like "Carnegie began working at a young age and quickly earned several impressive promotions. While Carnegie's hard work and business savvy is certainly impressive and deserves recognition, he used his newfound power to line his own pockets while disregarding the needs of workers below him."
Overall, your writing style is very impressive, clean, and informative. A few structural overhauls and adjustments, like removing the bolded headings, and some edits to ensure that your writing is focused and all serves to reinforce your thesis statement would help take this essay from a good draft to a polished final product. Please don't be discouraged by this review; I see the beginnings of something that could be truly impressive and am excited to offer some suggestions, however strong, to improve it. I hope these points were helpful to you and that my critiques made sense and help you improve this essay! If you have any questions please feel free to let me know and I'll do everything I can to help clear it up!
Best,
Tuck
Hello, Stormblessed here!
This was a well written essay! It coherent and cohesive. There are no misspellings or grammatical error that I could find. One thing I would suggest is stating what kind of essay this is supposed to be, because each kind is very different.
Ok, on to the nitpicking!
Carnegie’s Early Life
Ok, I really dont see how this entire section ties in the the essay. Unless there was a particular quota you had to fill, this section wasn't necessary. You definitely did your research, though, so full credit for that!
The Rise of Carnegie Steel Company
Again, you went all out on research! It's very detailed and clear. One correction I would make is the first sentence.
The men of the 19th and 20th centuries are considered one of two things.
Hey LZ!
First thing: I agree with @niteowl that you could cut down on the section about Carnegie's life, especially since the section is titled "Early Life" but his marriage and death were later in life.
re: Sources, I know you said you had a bibliography you just didn't include, but don't you have to cite the sources in the paper itself? Like, "Conditions deteriorated to a point in 1892 when Carnegie steelworkers went on strike at the Homestead plant in Homestead, Pennsylvania (Author, p.#)." Or it might look different, depending on what style book you're using.
(Actually, history usually uses Chicago style, in which case you'd have footnotes, so maybe you do and we just don't see them here!)
I'm not sure what your teacher is asking for; that's just typically a requirement of using sources, so I wanted to draw attention to it just in case.
Back to the content of the paper. You've got a good, clear thesis, so that helped me keep track of what your argument was. It also makes it easier for me to offer a critique!
Since your main point is that Carnegie was a robber baron, not a captain of industry (tbh I think most "captains of industry" were/are robber barons, but that's neither here nor there), I'd like to see that drawn out more. Here are some thoughts I had that might lengthen the "Carnegie the Robber Baron" section, since this is where you really dig into your main point:
1) In reference to Carnegie's donations, two points. The first is that you mention that Carnegie donates so much money because he was in competition with J.D. Rockefeller, so you could mention the fact that, evidently, he donated to win a contest/prove he had more money to throw away rather than out of any sort of philanthropic spirit. The second is that I'm wondering how much money Carnegie had: for example, it *sounds* impressive when Jeff Bezos donates hundreds of millions of dollars, but he's worth $116 billion. So when he donates $350 million, that's only 0.3% of his total wealth. People act like he's giving away his livelihood, but...he's not. So I'm curious as to whether Carnegie's $350 million was a substantial portion of his wealth or actually a very small percentage - if you can find that out, and if it's a small percentage, that could also show how he's not really much of a philanthropist.
2) Even if Carnegie donated millions that benefited charities that presumably helped the working class (on that note, do we know *what* charities he donated to? was he helped the average American, or was he having more concert halls built?), you know what would have really benefited the working class? Him treating his employees well and supporting unions.
3) You mentioned that Carnegie grew up working class and that his father suffered from the same sort of working conditions that his employees later worked under. This could also potentially be drawn out to show how Carnegie was a robber baron - even though he'd seen first-hand what kinds of horrible lives the working class led, he was so motivated by profits that it didn't matter to him (or at least we have no proof that it mattered to him) that he treated his employees similarly to how his father was treated! So that could also potentially strengthen your argument.
Finally, there may be more, but I noticed one misplaced modifier:
At age 18, Thomas Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company hired Carnegie as his personal secretary.
When Carnegie was 18, Thomas Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company hired him [or "Carnegie"] as his personal secretary.
Hi there LZPianoGirl! Niteowl here to leave a quick review.
So I'm assuming this is a school assignment, since I also had to write a paper in middle school about whether the "captains of industry" were robber barons. What I like about this is that there's a lot of good detail, especially about the rise of his steel company and how he treated his workers poorly.
Although he provided the material to build most of America’s first skyscrapers, not many people recognize his name.
120,212 Literary Works • 649,114 Reviews
Points: 0
Reviews: 311
Donate