Social Darwinism: Did Wealthy Industrialists Practice What They Preached?

During the Golden Age, many wealthy industrialists embraced social Darwinism, and laissez-faire, because it reinforced their right of wealth and position.  Most did not read about or fully understand social Darwinism, but parroted what they heard from others.  Some, like Andrew Carnegie, actually had a backwards understanding of social Darwinism.  In his essay on social Darwinism in 1900, Carnegie described an evolution that progressed from a complex state to a simple state, when in actuality evolution operated in the reverse.  Even though Carnegie seemed to have an incorrect understanding of social Darwinism, he was a big supporter of Herbert Spencer, a prolific author on social Darwinism who originated the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Most social Darwinism industrialists practiced what they preached only when it benefited them.  Few fully acted on it, and when supporters, such as William Graham Sumner, spoke up for social Darwinism and laissez-faire they were ridiculed by so-called social Darwinists that didn’t support the action because it went against their interests.

What is social Darwinism, and why did Golden Age industrialists embrace it?

What do the theories of social Darwinism and laissez-faire have in common?

Speech to a White Audience, Chief Jospeh, 1879

In-mut-too-yah-lat-lat, better known to us as Chief Joseph, was arguing for the freedom of his people.  He was trying to set straight the way that things occurred, in order to convince the white man that the land belonged to his people and they were free.  First he demonstrated that his people were good, law abiding people by explaining the code of laws that they lived by. This was likely an attempt to convince the reader that what he said next was true. Next he illustrated the history of his people to prove they had always been on their land, had never been the aggressor towards the white man, and that over the previous 100 years white men had gone from being friendly to threatening them with force.  Chief Joseph attempted to lay out their history with the white man to show step by step how the situation had developed and prove that his people were in the right. Throughout the speech, he addressed the audience as a friend in the hopes of appealing to their emotions.

Chief Joseph was an eloquent, convincing speaker.  Instead of using violence to defend his position, he used words. It took great courage to stand up to the white man’s determination to own the entire west with just words.  History will never forget the plight of his people because of Chief Joseph.

I have always been saddened and ashamed by how our American ancestors treated the Native Americans.  Chief Joseph’s speech is proof of the greedy betrayal of the white man and their disregard for others that were different.

Why Did So Many Soldiers Die?

Loss of life in the Civil War nearly equaled all loss of life in all wars up to the Vietnam War.  Most would think the primary cause of death for soldiers in the Civil War would have been death by the enemy, but in reality it was death by medicine.

There is no denying the carnage of the Civil War.  Armies had up to 200,000 or more soldiers on the field.  The sheer quantity of soldiers on the field could turn rivers red with blood.  Battle strategy was antiquated, not having changed since Napoleonic times.  Soldiers would advance in rows, shoulder to shoulder, head on with the enemy, with little or no cover to protect them.  Weapons technology had advanced from muskets to rifles.  Rifles shot further, had greater accuracy, and more deadly ammunition. 

The violence of the Civil War was brutal, but the violence of medicine was worse.  Limited by the lack of medical professionals, ambulances, and hospitals and complicated by the size of the armies, wounded soldiers would sometimes lie on the battlefield for days without water or aid. Neither side was prepared for the massive casualties of the war. Even worse was the lack of medical knowledge.  Germ theory had not yet been discovered, so surgeons didn’t wash in between patients and when they did wash it was often in dirty water.  Disease was rampant in the army camps, and treatment for disease was primitive. Prisoners of war suffered the most from disease.  In the end, disease killed almost double the soldiers of the Civil War combat itself.

Which was responsible for more death, combat or medicine?  Why?

How could such great loss of life been prevented in the Civil War?