1. What is the author arguing?
The author is arguing that Rockefeller illegal tactics are a danger to democracy itself because it undermines equality of the people in itself. In other words the author is trying to prove that Rockefeller gains control over the entire railroad business, including his competitors by the use of illegal rebates.
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
The author appeals to ethos that a man whom donated charity and have money to the poor saw this as a way for his actions to be justified, and that he had already paid his debts.
The author however appeals to pathos for its sympathy of those that were wronged by the system that Rockefeller created with the oil industry.
The logos side of this argument is how illegal the system of rebates on railroads were, and how it was against the law yet Rockefeller got away with it. Since Rockefeller was taking money even from his competitors now through his system it was obvious that it wasn't legal.
3.What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
This document is so historically relevant because of the overall influence of Rockefeller on the oil and railroad industry. Yet in order to get to the top he kept secrets such as the ones about the oil rates in order to control all of the oil industry. This document shows us how many men whom are deemed as good can even gain mistrust of the American people. Rockefellers political influence in itself over the oil industry is so relevant even to today's time, because of how influential the Rockefellers still are when it comes to politics.
4.Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
Yes I find the authors argument to be convincing.Rockefeller would make certain regions of railroad workers be taxed more. This wasn't democracy at all as he would often choose favorites. He kept the rate a secret which already proves that he knew what he was doing. He did this as a way to be at the head of the oil and railroad industry, and to prosper in riches.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePeople have varying views on the characteristics of John Rockerfeller. Some viewed him as a very hardworking, dedicated professional, while others portrayed him as deceitful and dangerous. He incorporated Standard Oil Company with the addition of business partners, and the success of the company granted Rockerfeller ultimate wealth. The philanthropist contributed to many charities, organizations, and founded the University of Chicago. I agree that the relevence of the document lies in the progression of Rockerfeller and the oil industry. Also, it is significant in that it relates to our current events, and provides history on our current oil crisis.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would say that he was the most powerful but the most hated. I would agree on the fact that he was one of the most incredible philanthropists in our history. He showed that virus causes the cancer and devised the drug therapy.He also helped to get the oil prices low by the standard oil. However, even though he did these great things, I think there were more evil sides of him who just wanted to get prosperity and rule all over. Of course, it is everyone's desire to be rich but he killed the other small companies.He ruied hundreds in his pursuit of profit.I agree with that he did everything as a way to become the head of the oil. Him as a person also sounds very contradictig to me because he was a religious man who was attending many affairs and were deeply in touch with the church. I think his characteristics such as this makes what make people wonder or to think that it is very hard and contradicting to decide if he really was considered a good man or just someone really evil.
ReplyDeleteMaurice Clark, Rockefeller’s business partner, claimed that he “had abiding faith in two things—the Baptist creed and oil.” He used his burgeoning wealth to apply philanthropic values which made his character even more contentious. There is no doubt, however, that he desired to control all the major refining centers in the nation. To bypass state laws, he created “hidden” companies that would annihilate competition without revealing a connection to Standard Oil. After investigations into oil companies commenced because of the legal favoritism hype, Standard Oil was regarded as a “mysterious organization.” The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 certainly did not stunt the prosperity of the company as they discovered loopholes to dodge it but no doubt, the organization was highly influential in the creation of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 which outlawed railroad pools and rebates.
ReplyDeleteRockefeller’s moral character remains suspended in ambiguity yet writers such as Ida Tarbell was quite influential in exposing him as a corrupt and unethical businessman consumed in corporate greed. Despite his contentious practices whether ethical or unethical, I do concur that he leaves a residue, both economically and politically even through today.
Rockefeller was viewed many different ways to some people he did good things like giving money to the poor but in the eyes of other people he was hated. Rockefeller's powers gave people this impression of him no one was able to really understand the really man that he was behind the power. Rockefeller in many ways was looking out for himself and no one else money and prosperty were the most important things to him which made him look evil in the eyes of the Americans.
ReplyDeleteLloyd wants the reader to be angered and offended (pathos) by the actions of the unnamed Rockefeller. He is making a point that rebate is wrong (logic), yet Rockefeller so easily used it to make his business a knockout success (pathos).
ReplyDeleteTarbell’s document shows evident emotional quality being that Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was the cause of the demise of her father’s small oil refinery. But she is able to back it up with logic by presenting Rockefeller’s character in two different lights. The devout Baptist who was charitable and the money hungry businessman who didn’t care about every other man trying to make a living in the oil business. By showcasing his two sides you sense the rationality of Tarbell’s arguments. Although her inquisition into may have started over personal vengeance presents facts that would make anyone relate and understand why what Rockefeller has done is unlawful, whether or not he had personally affected your life.
I found the authors’ arguments captivating and one’s of which at that time would have definitely got me thinking. But I don’t think they used enough bare facts to provide a flat out guilty verdict on Rockefeller. Using the reading from the text book and the documents I read together, then yes I find them convincing but the documents alone not entirely.
In response to your answer to your question number two, I will have to disgree. Although Rockefeller was trying to take advantage of the people and trying to get taxpayers to pay more, I still feel that outside of the business man he was a good person.
ReplyDeleteHe gave money to the poor because of his altruism, not so he wouldn't feel as bad with his decisions he was making with the oil company. He was a "great" husband because he loved his wife, not so he could make up for other things.
I really appreciate the standpoint Tarbell took. She probably had negative feelings toward Rockefeller because of what he did to her father's oil company, but she was not completely biased. In the beginning of her document, it seems she is taking everything out on him, but then she turns to straight facts to explain the situation. I feel it takes a lot of strength to stay in the middle when you have good reasons to feel biased towards a person.