“This chapter tells the little-known story, very important for understanding the politics of philanthropy, of the hostile encounter between his small group of foundations and an uncomfortable alliance of segregationists in Congress and tax lawyers in Treasury”. Zunz starts this chapter out by explicitly saying that he is going to tell the important story of the interaction between government and philanthropy in the early 1960’s. This chapter talks about how foundations had been getting plenty of fingers pointed at them at the time. Politicians opposed foundations being involved in civil rights, and civil servants suspected foundations of tax fraud. During the 60’s segregationists had resented advantages that the tax code had given foundations. Most influentially opposed to foundations was Wright Patman, a …show more content…
Patman had thought that government should have the control, and that the only useless part of big government was the Federal Reserve, simply because it catered to the needs of large corporations. The incredible increase in philanthropic foundations was not due to increased American generosity in Patman’s mind, but it was rather due to an increase in fiscal abuse. Patman had believed that philanthropy was a way to avoid inheritance taxes, keep control of companies generationally, and receive deductions when dumping unwanted assets. In these assumptions, Patman was right, as Zunz stated earlier that these were partial reasons as to how the Ford Foundation was created, although they still played a significant role in the Detroit area after the foundation was created. Other beliefs that Patman had were that philanthropy was a means to avoid antitrust legislation, hide suspicious or doubtful transactions from scrutiny, and also to influence the public through
“Judge Rutledge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia revealed, in perhaps the most searing, analytical, and penetrating opinion on the subject up to that time, that the charity immunity doctrine was built on a foundation of sand.” (Georgetown College v. Hughes, Federal)
Leaders such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Ford were all philanthropic and gave away their money to those in need. For instance, Andrew Carnegie had given a total of over $350 million in his lifetime and had centered his philanthropy on education and the quest for world peace. Carnegie built libraries mainly because he wanted to promote self-education and that he wanted everyone to have the access to books. He founded Carnegie University. He had always thought that “The rich have a moral obligation to give away their fortunes.” John D. Rockefeller donated over $550 million in his lifetime. Rockefeller built the University of Chicago and then founded Rockefeller University. The Rockefeller Foundation was his last charitable foundation and he had such an abundant amount of money that the foundation is still working “to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.” J.P. Morgan was an equally giving philanthropist after he retired from banking. He had become the president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art while he was also a trustee (lead donor, vice president, treasurer, and finance committee chairman). His love for the natural sciences gave way to the American Museum of Natural History. Morgan was also a part of the Episcopal Church which he had devoted a great deal of time to. Henry Ford
"…admitting what is called philanthropy, when adopted as a profession, to be often useful by its energetic impulse to society at large, it is perilous to the individual whose ruling passion, in one exclusive channel, it thus becomes. It ruins, or is fearfully apt to ruin, the heart, the rich juices of which God never meant should be pressed violently out and distilled into alcoholic liquor by an unnatural process, but should render life sweet, bland, and gently beneficent, and insensibly influence over other hearts and other lives to the same blessed end." (348)
Andrew Carnegie, was a strong-minded man who believed in equal distribution and different forms to manage wealth. One of the methods he suggested was to tax revenues to help out the public. He believed in successors enriching society by paying taxes and death taxes. Carnegie’s view did not surprise me because it was the only form people could not unequally distribute their wealth amongst the public, and the mediocre American economy. Therefore, taxations would lead to many more advances in the American economy and for public purposes.
...interpretations of their assumption of millions of dollars. Due to their appropriation of godlike fortunes, and numerous contributions to American society, they simultaneously displayed qualities of both aforementioned labels. Therefore, whether it be Vanderbilt’s greed, Rockefeller’s philanthropy, or Carnegie’s social Darwinist world view, such men were, quite unarguably, concurrently forces of immense good and evil: building up the modern American economy, through monopolistic trusts and exploitative measures, all the while developing unprecedented affluence. Simply, the captains of late 19th century industry were neither wholly “robber barons” or “industrial statesmen”, but rather both, as they proved to be indifferent to their “lesser man” in their quests for profit, while also helping to organize industry and ultimately, greatly improve modern American society.
Charity handouts did not necessarily help feed a poor family, but aimed to “... produce most beneficial results to [the] community” (Shi 60). This meant that the wealthy didn’t directly give citizens money, but built free public utilities. Among these free services were libraries and and centers for scientific research. Without a doubt, these buildings do not help put food on the table. They do, however, create a sense of hope for educational and social improvement for the working class.
Crutchfield, Leslie R., and Heather McLeod Grant. Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-impact Nonprofits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Print.
...rnegie was a wealthy upper-class man and believed in survival of the fittest, he was worried about the “proper administration of wealth.” (Weber 45) He believed that wealth should be in the control of the only a handful of people and they should decide how to administer the wealth; however, he didn’t want a corporate aristocracy either. In 1889, Andrew Carnegie wrote a book called The Gospel of Wealth which offered a solution to these problems.
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to
Wensink, Joseph. Literary Philanthropy: The Pulitzer Prize, Oprah's Book Club, and Contemporary U.S. Fiction. New York: Millersmith Publishers, 2012. Print.
...failed in his duty to redistribute his surplus wealth to his community, and that the State should heavily tax the remaining estate. This belief that men of wealth were responsible for bridging the widening gap between the well-to-do and those hoping to do well led Carnegie to publish The Gospel of Wealth.
A wealthy person, with the desire to do well with their fortune, could benefit society in a number of ways. Carnegie has verbally laid a blueprint for the wealthy to build from. His message is simple: Work hard and you will have results; educate yourself, live a meaningful life, and bestow upon others the magnificent jewels life has to offer. He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’…” (401). He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
The Charity Organization Society was based in the scientific movement of organizations. Workers believed that charity work needed more definition and organization and that charity should be focused more on individual need rather than as a whole population. Focusing on individual need was intended to improve relief operations while making resources more efficient. They also intended to eliminate public outdoor relief. With the promotion of more organization and efficiency the new Charity Organization Societies were born. Trattner states that these new requirements for organization and efficiency spread so “rapidly that within 6 years 25 cities had such organizations and by the turn of the century there were some 138 of them in existence” (Trattner, 1999).
Philanthropy, or the act of private and voluntary giving, has been a familiar term since it first entered the English language in the seventeenth century. Translated from the Latin term “philanthropia” or “love of mankind,” philanthropy permeates many social spheres and serves several social purposes including charity, humanitarianism, religious morality and even manipulation for social control.
Philanthropy is powerful because everyone can be affected by the love for mankind, this can change the world for better. Philanthropy is not the practice of self importance and putting yourself above others. Philanthropy and its power of changing the world is about donating to charity your time, belongings, or even sharing kind words or advice in an effort to better others. It is about giving to others less fortunate, and caring about other humans. Whether you know them or not, helping others and caring for the welfare of those less fortunate can change the world. One person can change the life of someone else's by one simple act of charity or kindness. Bill Gates is a wonderful example, due to his material advantages, he can give his belongings to others to help them, rather than keeping all his success to himself. Over his lifetime Mr. Gates donated $27