During the 1900’s the media and public eye never thought to question Andrew Carnegie’s motives. Andrew Carnegie wanted people to see him as a caring person, and achieved this by giving large amounts of money to charity. However, the money donated wasn’t his own earnings. He maintained a good image in the media because he was always giving to charity; but what the people didn’t consider is where he got the money from. The question of whether or not Andrew Carnegie was a hero will rely on three important articles. A hero is someone who cares about doing what is best for the people rather than for themselves, they aren’t worried about how others view them, and are strong willed so that they will not change their minds when they’ve made a decision. Andrew Carnegie’s focus on money and fame combined with his duplicitous and hypocritical nature does not equal to hero; instead, he stole the rightful wages of his workers, defends …show more content…
“The man who dies disgraced”(Andrew Carnegie, 1889). What he means by this is instead of giving the money to your children give it to charity because giving money to your children is misguided affection. This evidence helps explain why Andrew Carnegie was not a hero because it shows how Andrew Carnegie only cared about the fame and how the public eye saw him. Carnegie did not donate because he believed that it was right instead he did it for the fame.
“Wealth” written by Carnegie shows him defending his survival of the fittest way of earning money.Carnegie does this by saying that “The man who dies rich dies disgraced” (Carnegie, 1889) meaning that he believes that the rich man must give his money to the poor while he is still alive. The reason Carnegie says what he does is to improve upon his public image and doesn’t say it to be good but says it to look
Andrew Carnegie, the monopolist of the steel industry, was one of the worst of the Robber Barons. Like the others, he was full of contradictions and tried to bring peace to the world, but only caused conflicts and took away the jobs of many factory workers. Carnegie Steel, his company, was a main supplier of steel to the railroad industry.
In my opinion Carnegie is a truly a hero. Today we don’t see a lot of men giving their money away when they die. Carnegie did change many lives for the better, and he did help save lives as well. In Document B Carnegie would word how the wealthy would never do anything with their money for the better, he didn’t want to became one of them. Carnegie quote was “ The man who dies rich dies disgraced”, by that he means why would you all that money go to waste, you are going to be died, that money could help save many lives that is why he was one who changed
Andrew Carnegie was not a hero because he lacked integrity and concern for others because he lied about his competitors, and only cared about money. Carnegie may have had success but that doesn't make him a hero.
Steel Company after a serious, bloody union strike.He saw himself as a hero of working people, yet he crushed their unions. The richest man in the world, he railed against privilege. A generous philanthropist, he slashed the wages of the workers who made him rich. By this time, Carnegie was an established, successful millionaire. He was a great philanthropist, donating over $350 million dollars to public causes, opening libraries, money for teachers, and funds to support peace.
This statement is true, but the money that sustained the philanthropic ways of the Industrialists was obtained in a way exemplify the qualities of a Robber Baron. A list of Rockefeller's major donations added up to about $500,000,000. While this money went charities and hospitals, the money was made from unethical business practices and the undermining of employees. The Saturday Globe’s political cartoon of Carnegie shows him cutting wages and giving away libraries and money. Industrialists took money that went from their workers away to practice philanthropy. The money might have gone to great causes, but the way it was obtained is characteristic of Robber Barons. Andrew Carnegie's essay, “The Gospel of Wealth” he describes the role of the wealthy in the community. Carnegie class the millionaire a “trust for the poor” and states that the wealthy know how to best invest n the community. This role taken on by Carnegie and other wealthy Americans of the late 19th century is reminiscent of that of an oligarchy, where a small group has control of the community. The oligarchical position of the wealthy in Carnegie's essay is against the American values of freedom and individuality, and very discriminatory towards the
Growing up as a young boy in Scotland, Carnegie's family was not very wealthy. They immigrated to America where Carnegie went from working as a bobbin boy, making $1.20 per hour, to making millions of dollars later in his life. Carnegie did not become wealthy by unethical means, as a Robber Baron would. Instead he worked very hard and wise to get to where he was during that time. Andrew Carnegie came from "rags to riches" in his lifetime and it paid off.
Andrew Carnegie, a philanthropist who has helped hundreds. But there is a side of him that not many knew. Is Andrew Carnegie a hero? Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland. He and his family were in poverty, living in an attic of a weavers cottage. For a better life, his family moved to America. There Carnegie started working as a bobbin boy. Carnegie later became locally famous, and was later given a well paying job. Andrew Carnegie was not a hero because he was greedy, and prideful. In the Andrew Carnegie,“Wealth” North American Review, June 1889 text it states that Carnegie did not leave much fortune to his own family, because he believed it to be “misguided affection” This was selfish of him to give his own family enough money, the money that they deserve. In addition in the Cartoon Published in The Saturday Globe it shows that while Andrew Carnegie was giving money to other countries, his workers needed the money the most to be able to support their families.
...ve up the fortunes they have built themselves. It is an admirable idea to give your money to help promote a thriving community. Carnegie states that he is against charity and believes that those in need should be taught how to improve their own lives. To fund these institutes and corporations a form of charity must be given. Wealthy citizens give their excess money to a few to disperse of in a way they see fit to help the race. Most Americans are not willing to give up such a large sum of money as noble and respectable of an idea as it is. I think that Carnegie’s plan, in theory, would work and would be best for the race. I do not think it is practical because most would rather spoil their own family with inheritance than give it away to help people unknown to them. Carnegie’s idea of fair is equal opportunities for everyone to help themselves and the race.
He goes over how a man with a plentiful amount of money who only keeps it to himself is basically a waste and he even says in (Doc B) ‘The man who dies rich dies a disgrace’. In that quote he is basically saying that a rich man should give and help while he is still around. By dying rich this shows that he didn’t help as much as he could, and he kept his fortune to himself. Carnegie is basically saying what is the point of being rich if you can’t help others in good ways. He was so helpful he helped by giving away libraries to other places showing he cares about the education of
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute
Even though these men attempted to build a stable foundation for America to grow on, their negative aspects dramatically outweighed the positive. Even though Andrew Carnegie donated his fortunes to charity, he only acquired the money through unjustifiable actions. As these industrialists continued to monopolize companies through illegal actions, plutocracy- government controlled by the wealthy, took control of the Constitution. Sequentially, they used their power to prevent controls by state legislatures. These circumstances effect the way one
Born in Dunfermline, Scotland in 1835, Andrew Carnegie will soon aid in shaping the industrialization and urbanization movement in the 19th and 20th centuries. His early life leads up to his innovations and the becoming of being the wealthiest American of his time.
Carnegie did not believe in spending his money on frivolous things, instead he gave most of his fortune back to special projects that helped the public, such as libraries, schools and recreation. Carnegie believes that industries have helped both the rich and the poor. He supports Social Darwinism. The talented and smart businessmen rose to the top. He acknowledges the large gap between the rich and the poor and offers a solution. In Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie, he states, “the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves” (25). He believes the rich should not spend money foolishly or pass it down to their sons, but they should put it back into society. They should provide supervised opportunities for the poor to improve themselves. The rich man should know “the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise- free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind” (Carnegie p. 28). Also, Carnegie does not agree they should turn to Communism to redistribute wealth. Individuals should have the right to their earnings. Corporations should be allowed to act as it please with little to no government
Carnegie’s essay contains explanations of three common methods by which wealth is distributed and his own opinions on the effects of each. After reading the entire essay, readers can see his overall appeals to logos; having wealth does not make anyone rich, but using that wealth for the greater good does. He does not force his opinions onto the reader, but is effectively convincing of why his beliefs make sense. Andrew Carnegie’s simple explanations intertwined with small, but powerful appeals to ethos and pathos become incorporated into his overall appeal to logos in his definition of what it means for one to truly be rich.
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.