“What if the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws (of survival of the fittest) upon which civilization have thrown it into the hands of the few?” (Doc. B - Andrew Carnegie) Andrew Carnegie was a Scottish-American, self-made entrepreneur who from the age of 24 was motivated and well to do. He was, from the start, always trying to find ways to make money. Finally, he found out a way to make steel that was stronger, more durable, and cheaper. An entrepreneur is someone who organizes a business to make money. Many people are debating whether or not Andrew was a hero or villain. With regard to his philanthropy, Andrew Carnegie was a hero because he spread wealth at Skibo, his philosophy was geneous, and the size of his giving was …show more content…
“The man who dies rich, dies disgraced” (Doc B)
He wanted to give his money away before death, and he had to decide what he was going to do with the money. Andrew says that there are three modes in which you can distribute your fortune; left for the families, left for public uses or lastly it can be administered by its possessors during their lives, which he states in Doc B. He knew that giving to society was the best, because of all of the poor, and that they would all be very grateful. He was more concerned about them, than anything or anyone, and man to he gave away a lot of money.
The amount of money Andrew was giving away each time was massive. Every time he donated, the amount would be beyond normal. For example, Andrew donated $50,365,000 to free public libraries to help society with education (Doc. C). He also donated $15,000,000 to the Teachers’ Pension Fund to help pay old age professors who were poor (Doc. C). Overall, Andrew decided to donate $350,695,653 to various organizations that help society. (Doc C). Even though Andrew’s Carnegie corporation’s net assets in 2005 were listed at $2,167,000,000, the amount he donated all together was more than
In document C, we see a partial list of his transactions with charities, including; the Teachers’ Pension Fund, the Homestead Relief Fund, the Carnegie Institution, and public libraries. The things these donations did were very helpful to many, helping professors get old age help, funding steel workers and their families, promoting scientific research, and helping to create over 2,811 public libraries. He also created the Carnegie Corporation, which was a supertrust made to continue giving out Carnegie’s fortune after his death, primarily to education. This shows that he used his finances to give back to communities, which he could only do because of his financial
Andrew Carnegie was a hero in some people 's eyes , not so much in others . That’s why everyone has their own opinion. In this essay you will read one reason someone might think he’s a hero , and two reasons why he is not a hero for the rest of the people. What that means is that this paper mostly leans on that Andrew Carnegie is not a hero and you will read why . Andrew Carnegie was a very wealthy man.
As industry began to grow in America, a select group of pioneers such as Andrew Carnegie became controversial. The controversy was that they were simply rich and took from the poor. People who participated in such acts were referred to as “Robber Barons”. It is often said that Andrew Carnegie was a “Robber Baron” but he was not because in his case, he was one of the first people to bring industry to such a large scale. Without people before him, he had no guidance and therefore it was much harder to conduct business because he was essentially creating his own path.
There had to be a way to keep the industry growing, with the needs for education, as well as materials for farming and for the use of new inventions in technology. The captains of industry were very capable in providing for these needs. In Document C, Wealth, Andrew Carnegie describes what the man of wealth was responsible for: “To produce the most beneficial results for the community- Bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.” The conditions of the lower class at the time gave these men a leading role for priorities, which they were successful with.
Robber Barons and Captains of Industry Some might believe that the businessmen of the Gilded age are robber barons because of how some of them treated their workers and spent their money. The businessmen of the Gilded Age were captains of industry because of the impact that they made on the country. Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Vanderbilt all have done things that can identify them as captains of industry. These businessmen gave their time and effort to help the economy grow.
However, in the real world, the real-life man of steel is the great innovator of the early industrial age in America, Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie was the father of the steel industry. Most of the construction field's steel supply and its applications are all thanks to this Scottish immigrant who was brought by fate to the United States. Rise of Steel In the early days of steel manufacturing, there was hesitation in using the said material due to production costs.
The United States began to enter a prosperous and increasing period after the civil war known as industrialization. Despite the fact that industrialization led the United States to wealth, it also led it to many social and economic problems during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this time, Upton Sinclair and Andrew Carnegie were the people who responded to the economic and social problems generated by industrialization. Andrew Carnegie was one of the wealthy men in America and was very charitable, he impacted the United States with his steel to transform cities. During these economic and social problems generated by industrialization, he responded by providing money to fund charities.
A hero is someone who does a meaningful deed, worthy of remembrance and selflessly. Andrew Carnegie was a wealthy man. After he sold his steel company in 1900, he devoted the rest of his life giving money to charity. Did Andrew Carnegie’s generosity make him a hero? Andrew Carnegie was not a hero.
He believed that if the wealthy don't give back some of their profits to the community, they are living a dishonorable life, and although I didn't necessarily agree with this radical viewpoint at first, I now am a firm believer in Carnegie's argument about wealth.
The late 19th century was full of growth, production, and business. People were craving power and seemed to achieve this through any means necessary. Consequently, a new business elite formed consisting of the richest men alive. The way in which these individuals acquired all their profits is something very contradictory even over one-hundred years later. Some historians characterize these businessmen as “robber barons” who used extreme methods to control and concentrate wealth and power, and being supported by multiple sources, this statement is justified but only to some extent.
Part of a captain of industries duty were to make sure that whatever he does whether it is “trust funds in which he administered”, it would have to benefit the community (DOC 2). Andrew Carnegie believed in Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the belief of the “survival of the fittest.” You are rich because God is rewarding and you are poor because you aren’t working hard
In the past, there have been many influential economic figures in the industrial business industry. Andrew Carnegie is one of the most famous of these figures but not just in a business scheme, but also in an economic and national scheme. Andrew Carnegie is a business man that caused a major controversial issue to arise; the topic of being labeled a Robber Baron or a Captain of Industry by the public. A Robber Baron is someone who has become wealthy through heartless and unethical business actions that will only benefit the individual. On the other hand, a Captain of Industry is a business leader who has become rich by accomplishing activities that will, overall, benefit the people of the community such as expanding a market or providing more jobs.
At the end of the 19th Century, as the United States was experiencing rapid industrialization, a reconfiguration of the social order yielded opposing visions of social progress. Andrew Carnegie, wealthy businessman, and Jane Addams, founder of Chicago’s Hull House, put forward different methods to achieve such progress, where Addams focuses on creating social capital in a seemingly horizontal manner while Carnegie advocates for a top-down approach. While both of them seem to reap a sense of purpose from their attempts to improve the nation, their approaches vary depending on their vision of the composition of the population they want to uplift. First, Carnegie and Addams’ desire to improve society is partly self-serving. For Carnegie, improving society is the role of the wealthy man who, “animated by Christ’s spirit” (“Wealth”), can administer wealth for the community better than it could have for itself (“Wealth”).
A captain of industry can be defined as ¨a business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributed positively to the country in some way.” Andrew Carnegie was an ideal representation of a captain of industry, he was born poor, yet he rose the ranks and became a successful businessman who dedicated his fortune to good causes. Due to his success and innovation in the steel industry and his benevolent donations, Andrew Carnegie was a prosperous businessman who benefited lives across America. Andrew Carnegie furthered the steel industry and brought forward new innovations that advanced technology and market shares for generations. Not only did Carnegie develop technologies, he helped forge new business models.
Underpinnings and Effectiveness of Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” In Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth”, Carnegie proposed a system of which he thought was best to dispose of “surplus wealth” through progress of the nation. Carnegie wanted to create opportunities for people “lift themselves up” rather than directly give money to these people. This was because he considered that giving money to these people would be “improper spending”.