Very detailed account of the Commodore's life and times. A bit too detailed for my interest, particularly the railways' stock dealings get very technical. The steam boat era was more interesting to me than the railroad part. But Stiles offers great context and insights into American history of the time ( )

Alexander Hamilton, America’s first Treasury Secretary, is often credited with forming the nation’s new economic system. Not far behind him (or even beside him) sits Cornelius Vanderbilt. In modern times, his name is most associated with a university in Nashville, but his legacy touched many turning points of nineteenth-century America. In this biography, Stiles describes Vanderbilt’s story beginning with the waning years of the eighteenth century and continuing after the Civil War until railroads united the country.

A full examination of Vanderbilt’s life is beyond the scope of this essay because, well, there’s so much to his life. Stiles does an excellent job condensing the story into less than 1,000 pages. Everything from the formation of the corporation to the reach of steamboats and railroads, from inter-state commerce to the economic union of the American east and west, from the defeat of the Confederate rebellion to attempts to reunify the country – all these things were touched upon by this great man. He was the first of the big men in an era of big (and rich) men.

Stiles details each of these stories and sketches the personality of a difficult man. From his early years as a steamboat captain to later years as an economic giant, the portrait that emerges is one of financial acumen, strategic clarity, and determination. Stiles inspects the economic forces carefully – much more carefully than I am capable of – and shows how the American system of life was founded outside of government. His work in business helped unify the country’s economy, perhaps more than anyone else.

I read this book because I work at a medical center that bears the Vanderbilt name. Having gathered outlines of his life from prior history classes, I wanted to learn more about the life of this giant. Given his relative lack of formal education, his continual social and financial ascent is quite impressive. We can only hope that the huge gap between rich and poor in the Gilded Age never repeats itself, but a giant of business and transportation such as Vanderbilt should be appreciated even in our era of fiber-optic cables and the microchip. ( )

Another biography i started but just couldn't stay with. Read maybe 100 pages, but stopped. yes, the story is fascinating, important and well told. But i am never that interested in the person - but in the overall context (history) of the time. So, yes- there is context, but one is never quite sure if we are reading the history of this topic or just the narrow band of the person involved. Why limit to that band? what's the point? To get at the great man and their thoughts / influences i suppose, but i am always drifting on that point. All good well- but another example of why biography is not for me. ( )

One thing is obvious after reading this book, Cornelius Vanderbilt was an impressive man in many ways. Going from being a son in a small merchant family to one of the richest and most powerful men in our modern history is not something for everyone. Being at the right place at the right time helps, but there must have been thousands or millions of people with the same basic start as him that still never came close.

But if we return to the book. This is the first real biography I've read and it is a big one and, what I think, not an excellent one as a literary work. Cornelius Vanderbilt wasn't a man who left a lot of sources for people to dig into, so apparently this is as far as anyone has come. Instead of good material a lot has to be inferred from second hand sources which are always coloured by sources and readers alike. So why did the author decide to grab this hard task? I cannot be sure but I have the feeling he wants to modify the picture other, more shallow, biographies paint and also learn more about a man of very little is really known.

According to the author, Cornelius Vanderbilt was a hard man with a very strict morale code that he applied to himself and others. Even when he seemingly broke agreements it's possible to show how it was not so from his own point of view. The author also wants to show that he was not aggressive, except in self defense, though he then spared no bullet which most of the time ended in overwhelming business victories. That he was compassionate, but never willing to let it show. That he was patriotic but also forgiving to his enemies (once they were defeated).

Is this true? Well, who am I to tell. Maybe. People seem to think so. I'm impressed by him even if only some of it is true, and the author is clearly impressed by him. I do wish there had been more material closer to the source and I do wish for more technical details about the inventions he did, and the methods he applied to cut costs in a way that made him so successful.

It did make me want to know more about the American Civil War though so that might be my next project in the historical genre. That, or something about one of the other tycoons from the mid/second half of the 19th century to get another angle on things. ( )

Biography of a man at the heart of huge changes in American economics and therefore politics; he started with boats across the Hudson, became a steamship mogul, then ended life as a railroad mogul. Beginning as a critic of monopolies granted to the already-rich (and a prime mover in Gibbons v. Ogden!), Cornelius Vanderbilt ended life in support of monopolies, albeit ones assembled by new money. Stiles is kind of in awe of Vanderbilt for reasons that I find a little hard discern from his character, which seemed laser-focused on making money no matter what, but he does a great job setting Vanderbilt in his social and economic context. Also, I saw shades of Elon Musk in this Mark Twain quote about Vanderbilt in1869: “You seem to be the idol of only a crawling swarm of small souls, who love to glorify your most flagrant unworthiness in print or praise your vast possessions worshippingly; or sing of your unimportant private habits and sayings and doings, as if your millions gave them dignity.” ( )