• QUESTION 2: Answer the following question using proof from the documents below.

    2. What were the positive aspects of industrialization?
     

    Supporting Question 2

    Featured Source

    Source A: Graph bank: Graphs of oil prices and Gross National Product

     

    Graph 1: Michael Rizzo, graph of changes in the real price of oil, 1870–1897, Wicked Slashers of Cost, 2009.

    © Michael Rizzo. Used with permission

    GNP is the market value of all the products and services produced in one year by labour and property supplied by the residents of a country.

     

    Graph 2: Chart depicting the growth in real GNP from 1869 to 1918.

    Public domain. Chart created by Equilibrium007 July 24, 2010. Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US-GNP-per-capita-1869-1918.png. 

     
     
     
     
     

    Supporting Question 2

    Featured Source

    Source B: Senator Leland Stanford, an interview with Stanford on his thoughts about the nature of capital, New York Tribune (excerpt), May 4, 1887

     

    …LABOR IS THE CREATOR OF CAPITAL, And capital is in the nature of a stored up force. It is like the balance wheel of an engine, which has no motion that has not been imparted to it, but is a reservoir of force which will perpetuate the motion of the machinery after the propelling power has ceased. A man takes a few thousand dollars of capital, builds a workshop, buys raw material advantageously, and engages a hundred workmen to manufacture boots and shoes. This is the foundation of enterprise. The employer of labor is a benefactor. The great majority of mankind do not originate employments for themselves. They either have not the disposition, or the ability to so originate and direct their own employment. Whatever may the fault, it is truth that the majority of mankind are employed by the minority.

    Public domain. http://dynamics.org/Altenberg/ARCHIVES/STANFORD/LELAND_STANFORD/Stanford_Cooperation_of_labor.1887.pdf.

     



     

     

    Supporting Question 2

    Featured Source

    Source C: Andrew Carnegie, explanation about how to solve problems of wealth inequality in the late 19th century, “Wealth,” North American Review (excerpts), June, 1889

     

    NOTE: The following text is taken from an 1889 article written by the industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie in which he describes an approach to dealing with wealth inequality. In his proposed system, wealthy individuals would give away their surplus wealth, or what they do not need, in order to help those less fortunate. Carnegie had become famous for donations to local communities, including library buildings and church organs. In this excerpt, Carnegie justifies the system that supports the existing wealth inequality.

    The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years. In former days there was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief and those of his retainers. The Indians are to-day where civilized man then was. When visiting the Sioux, I was led to the wigwam of the chief. It was just like the others in external appearance, and even within the difference was trifling between it and those of the poorest of his braves. The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to-day measures the change which has come with civilization.

    This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential for the progress of the race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so….

    Formerly articles were manufactured at the domestic hearth or in small shops which formed part of the household. The master and his apprentices worked side by side, the latter living with the master, and therefore subject to the same conditions. When these apprentices rose to be masters, there was little or no change in their mode of life, and they, in turn, educated in the same routine succeeding apprentices. There was, substantially social equality, and even political equality, for those engaged in industrial pursuits had then little or no political voice in the State.

    But the inevitable result of such a mode of manufacture was crude articles at high prices. To-day the world obtains commodities of excellent quality at prices which even the generation preceding this would have deemed incredible. In the commercial world similar causes have produced similar results, and the race is benefited thereby. The poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford. What were the luxuries have become the necessaries of life. The laborer has now more comforts than the landlord had a few generations ago. The farmer has more luxuries than the landlord had, and is more richly clad and better housed. The landlord has books and pictures rarer, and appointments more artistic, than the King could then obtain….

    We accept and welcome therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment, the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few, and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race.

    Public domain. Source: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1876-1900/andrew-carnegie-wealth-june-1889.php.

     

     
     

    Supporting Question 2

    Featured Source

    Source D: Westchester Daily Telegram, cartoon depicting Andrew Carnegie’s efforts as a philanthropist, March 26, 1913

     

     

    Public domain.