Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (Review)
I enjoy looking back at my reading list and seeing how my previous selections often have a nexus to my next selection. Devil in the White City (1890s Chicago) led to Charlatan (1900s Midwest), which led to Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937 Ohio/New York). Titan was on my list because Ron Chernow’s Hamilton was stupendous. As a reading friend of mine noted, Chernow “doesn't know how to do a short biography!” Despite its heft, I found Titan just as binge-worthy as Hamilton. Rockefeller was delightful mix of apparent contradictions, and the interplay of his religion and how it shaped his life warranted the depth of analysis Chernow provided. If you like a weighty biography with plenty to consider, Titan should be on your list.
In case your memory of the industrial barons—or “robber barons,” depending on your view of the era—is foggy, John D. Rockefeller was the progenitor of Standard Oil, which eventually spawned Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco, and more. Along the way, Rockefeller became one of the wealthiest men in history ($336 billion in 2010 dollars). With that wealth, Rockefeller shaped education, medicine, and politics, and more, which is why the life of an industrialist warrants the time commitment of Chernow’s biography.
Here are some of the notes and observations I took while unpacking Chernow’s analysis of John D. Rockefeller:
Some of Rockefeller’s critics viewed him as a glorified clerk who merely focused on the ledgers. Chernow noted this assessment discounted his broad vision and skills to execute. Rockefeller’s focus on the ledgers showed his hard reliance on data and numbers instead of what his employees might tell him. This was rare for a time that too often neglected a systematic approach to business. Similarly, one of Rockefeller’s greatest achievements was “the invention of inventions.” Prior to Rockefeller hiring a chemist, it was unheard of for the oil industry to have a scientist on staff. Rockefeller brought reason to business instead of gut impulses.
Chernow often described Rockefeller as “circumspect” when it came to his words—a “reticent” man. These rarely seem like valued traits today.
Rockefeller was the founder of the University of Chicago. During this part of the biography, Chernow contrasted Rockefeller and William Rainey Harper, the university’s first president. Rockefeller was quiet, circumspect—an inflexible planner. Harper was a visionary with little attention to details. Chernow noted their differences were bound to cause clashes and they did, particularly over Harper’s free-for-all spending. The juxtaposition of the men’s strengths had me considering that effective collaborations often need people of both types. A team must have individuals of both types.
William Rockefeller, John’s father, and many of John’s industrialist friends critiqued the sponsorship of the University of Chicago: “you are getting together a lot of scribblers—a crowd of socialists—who won’t do any good.” John responded, “While scribblers of the worthless kind brought poison with their ink to the minds of the people, yet multitudes of others come out of these institutions of learning to strengthen the good among us. Let us hope so.”
Muckraker Ida Tarbell, who attacked Rockefeller and Standard Oil, once conducted a spying session while Rockefeller spoke at the Euclid Avenue Baptist Church. The experience implanted in her the conclusion that Rockefeller was living in fear: “fear of his own kind.” This led her to write a theme that Rockefeller was tortured by his ill-gotten gains. Her observation that he was fidgety helped cement this idea. It was the only time Tarbell saw Rockefeller in person and it discounts Rockefeller’s habit—a known practice—that he scanned the congregation for recipients of his cash-envelope charity. Chernow highlighted the points of truth in Tarbell’s critique of Standard Oil practices. He also showed there were even more indications that Tarbell saw what she wanted to see when sizing up Rockefeller as an individual.
During Rockefeller’s pivot from capitalist to philanthropist, Chernow commented that Rockefeller’s good was just as good as his bad was bad. Yet how much is the bad perceived in hindsight? After the laws had changed and monopolies earned the sullied reputation they have? Despite the buttoned-down reputation of the era, it really was the wild west as America transitioned to the premier industrial and financial power. The laws—and the perceived immorality—were developing in conjunction with the new industries. This is not to discount Rockefeller’s action, but it highlights the importance of context when assessing a person’s deeds.
The press and Teddy Roosevelt benefited from corporations not yet having any modern sense of public relations. For instance, when a publication came out refuting Ida Tarbell’s story, Rockefeller’s approach was to widely circulate paper copies. Standard Oil had no public-relations employees on staff. J.P. Morgan learned this lesson and soon had a full-time individual devoted to crafting an effective message.
Rockefeller lived long enough to see America grow to love him, which was shocking given the widespread nature of the public’s disdain for him. The public forgot his villainous reputation and came to appreciate his anachronistic nature—spendthrift and folksy despite his tremendous wealth. His philanthropic endeavors also became the source of his new reputation.
Titan far exceeded my expectations, though my expectations likely reflect a strong preference for the history of political figures. John D. Rockefeller lived a fascinating life, and the echoes of it still resonate today. The way Rockefeller reconciled his beliefs and actions combined with the staggering success and wealth make for a man of intrigue that kept me coming back with enthusiasm from start to finish. Chernow may not have it in him to write a short biography, but he certainly explores individuals whose lives warrant such rigorous cartography.
