<p>My APUSH teacher gives us DBQ's and essays to do pretty much every 4 or 5 days. This is a sample DBQ essay that I wrote in response to one of his prompts. I don't remember exactly what the prompt said and I even more don't remember what the documents were. I'd like to know what you guys would score me. Please and thanks in advance! </p>
<p>note: i don't usually score anything above a 4. I also don't think I used the documents as intended because most of them were geared to write a paper about how horrible the robber barons of the century were, etc.</p>
<h2>the prompt was: historians have often portrayed thecapitalists who shaped post-Civil War industrial America as either admirable "captains of industry" or corrupt "robber barons". Evaluate which of these descriptions- "captains of industry" or "robber barrons"- is a more accurate characterization of these capitalists. </h2>
<p>More often than not, Americas antebellum capitalists are accused of being the robber barons of industrial America. The misconception is that these men took advantage of a naïve and growing economy and reaped its benefits without giving anything in return. True, the majority of America was poor in comparison to the few elites, but the philanthropist efforts and contributions of these men can not be denied. If not for these men and their efforts, there would have been no one to pave the road to Americas industrial domination. </p>
<pre><code>Successful capitalists of the late 1800s were referred to as robber barons because of the common belief that they were responsible for the farmers grievances (doc. D). The weapon of these robber barons was the trusts created to gear economical power and domination toward these men (doc. E). True, these men did utilize trusts and methods such as horizontal and vertical integration. However, if these men did not create such methods to harness the industry, there would have been no other alternative for America as a whole to grow. The South had already proved that dependence on a one-crop economy was a failing gamble, and all other innovations were too primitive and needed these mens wealth and power to grow anyway.
The laboring class argues that work conditions were horrible; they were unsanitary, overbearing, exhausting, and the list continues (doc. F and G). While this argument holds true, it can not be denied that if more money had been spent on salaries and the beautification of the working environment, the manufacturers would have had no wealth to redistribute to philanthropist purposes. If Rockefeller had not stolen from his workers, who then would have contributed to the University of Chicagos educational and enlightenment funds? If Carnegie had not donated his funds to the creation and prosperity of Carnegie University, how then would the Universitys present day achievements have come alive? The fact of the matter is that if it were not for these robber barons and their philanthropy, there would be no solid educational basis for America to grow from. And without some form of education, the innovations that Americas greatest inventors created would have not found their way to industrial success and popularity.
So while it is true that these capitalists wealth widened the gap between the rich and poor, the argument that these men were more like the leaders of a growing industry is even more valid (doc A). These Northern capitalists led the South away from sole agricultural economic dependence, but more importantly, they used their wealth for the growth of Americas industry (doc. B). If these men did not transfer their wealth towards philanthropist educational development, there would have been no means for industrial development. And if Americas industry could not develop, it would never have risen to industrial excellence.
</code></pre>
<p>--
please and thanks :D</p>