Was Andrew Carnegie A Hero Dbq

Karl Marx once wrote, “History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good.” By all accounts, a hero is someone who not only has a positive impact on their community, but also consistently demonstrates their own selflessness, morality, compassion, and generosity. Was Andrew Carnegie one of these great, heroic men? Or was he just another wealthy hypocrite, chaining the poor to the harsh machinery of capitalism while claiming to be giving them the means with which to free themselves? By examining his personal life and opinions, his supposed “philanthropy” and the harsh and vile treatment of his labourers, it is evident that Andrew Carnegie cannot, in good conscience, be proclaimed a hero, as in most

Firstly, it is clear in Document 3 that Carnegie was extremely preoccupied with the acquisition of wealth. His claim that he would “get out of” a business that only drew up financial statements once a year stands out in particular. It is hard to imagine that this preoccupation would not influence his life in other ways. For example, Carnegie, like many people during his time, believed that Darwin’s idea of “survival of the fittest” was not only applicable to humans, but also the ideal state of society. In Document 2, he justifies the economic inequality he knew existed by stating that at least it was, “better... than universal squalor.” Carnegie believed, essentially, that the only two options available were for some to be wealthy or none to be wealthy, and decided that it was more beneficial to, “the progress of the race,” that the elite few enjoy wealth to the detriment of many. Does this sound like a compassionate or selfless man? He goes on to claim that no “evil” has resulted from accumulation of wealth– completely disregarding the plight of the worker in favour of the rich. Document 1 reveals that his supposedly “humble” personal life was anything but. Carnegie owned a castle in Scotland that had cost $10 million to renovate, and presumably even more to acquire in the first place. This was in addition to his

Document 4 shows that Carnegie was able to cut costs by more than $20 per ton. The natural question that arises is this: how was he able to get costs so low? Document 5 suggests that the practice of vertical integration was essential to profits, as it enable Carnegie to own a monopoly on the entire industry of steel production, all the way from the iron ore mines to the ships that transported materials to the steel mill itself. Although ingenious, this strategy usually results in market monopolies, which can end up being harmful to both competitors and the consumer. In addition to the tactic of vertical integration shown in Document 5, Documents 6 and 7 reveal the extreme exploitation of workers that Carnegie used to increase his profits. Workers endured conditions, “like the mouth of hell,” and suffered through, “inhuman,’ work for twelve hours a day. The furnace workers were paid $2.25 a day. Although this was above the national average in 1892, that wage was only paid to them two years after the strike. They also worked two hours longer than the average worker did. The men shoveling, and “two-thirds of the whole plant,” only made $1.40 per day, a little less than the average for all manufacturing industries even before the strike. The document also says that, “a cut has since taken place.” A worker at Carnegie’s factory would have to work