These “ Captains of Industry “ donated to charity and helped the poor after they helped themselves. Stated by Andrew Carnegie in Wealth and Its Uses “ It will be a great mistake for the community to shoot the millionaires, for they are bees that make the most honey, and contribute most to the hive even after they have gorged themselves full. “ Carnegie is explaining that millionaires make the most honey ( money/wealth ) and contribute the most to the hive ( community ) after the millionaires are stable themselves. These businessmen also set an example on how to live and deal with wealth, also stated by Andrew Carnegie in The Gospel of Wealth “ This, then, is helf to be the duty of the man of wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance “ and “ to produce the most beneficial results for the community - the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren.” Carnegie is explaining that men of tremendous wealth need to set an example of living for the poor and produce for the whole
The response to poverty in the Gilded Age was the rich and the poor not being able to come to an agreement in response to those who can hardly make ends meet. Andrew Carnegie was one of the wealthiest men during the Gilded Age. Carnegie was not the best man to work for because he was against labor unions and approved using violence against his own employees. In “Andrew Carnegie, The Gospel of Wealth” It talks about how the rich and the poor could come together if they had the “proper administration of wealth.” Carnegie thought it was better to build institutions instead of give to the poor because the strength of the mind and body will benefit the community while solving the problem between the rich and the poor.
Andrew Carnegie and Samuel Gomper have different takes when it comes to the role that wealthy people should have in society. The two authors have opposed feelings toward the poor people being in the state of condition that they are in. Although their views are different what they are proposing in both documents can help the poor people. Carnegie’s The Gospel of Wealth focus more on what the wealthy people should do with their wealth to benefit the society.
In a brief introduction, the 19th century was marked by the development of scientific knowledge. The search for new technologies, leveraged by the Industrial Revolution, caused scholars to multiply in various areas of knowledge. At that time, various academies and associations geared for the "progress of science" recognized the figure of scientists and put them as important agents of social transformation. In 1889, with the publication of the book "The Gospel of Wealth", Andrew Carnegie comes to the classical approach of social responsibility of the large companies.
The captains of industry believed that the poor people were inferior to the rich people. The rich were superior because they had “wisdom, experience, and the ability to administer”. The duty of a rich person was to help out a poor person which was what was said in the Gospel of Wealth. The Gospel of Wealth is about how the rich person's responsibility is philanthropy. Carnegie believes in charity work so he would donate to libraries, and universities and schools and etc.
During the Gilded Age, Andrew Carnegie became a wealthy man due to his control over the manufacturing and distribution of steel. The Carnegie Steel Company and its use of vertical and horizontal integration allowed Carnegie to control the production and distribution of his steel, which made him into a wealthy industrialist (The New Tycoons 2014). In his article “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues for the wealthy to give back their wealth to the community by providing “public institutions of various kinds … [to] improve the general condition of the people” (Foner 30). He uses this article to promote his Gospel of Wealth idea and provide his interpretation of the changing American society. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth stated that “those who accumulated
Likewise, many wealthy people, including big business leaders, came to realize that it was their role in society was to give back. Due to all the negative responses, people such as Andrew Carnegie were huge philanthropists . They stated that because they were wealthy and were better inclined than most, they should be willing to help those at the bottom. Andrew Carnegie’s, Gospel of Wealth, explicitly stated how the wealthy have a moral obligation to give back (Outside Evidence). Other major responses to changes and the impact of big business were responses from the government.
The Gospel of Wealth. Line 55-60 P.209). Carnegie’s main idea was that you don’t give out handouts, you give them a way to bring themselves out of the bottom. That is a huge thing because he saw himself as an example of someone who brought themselves out of a poor situation. So for him this was a way of giving money back to the community and he was a very charitable man.
This caused unrest among the populace (Brinkley 477). In contrast, the wealthy viewed industrialization very positively (Brinkley 472-473). Andrew Carnegie, one of these millionaires, had a singular view on wealth, and his philosophy both stemmed from and influenced his actions during his life. Carnegie’s view of rampant capitalism and the class separation it caused was radically different from most the population.
The Gilded Age was a time of quick growth in the United States both in the economy and population. Though this period between the Civil War and World War I was a time of development, there were many downsides as well, such as political corruption, corporate financial misdealing, and imbalance of money. During this time, there was a huge difference in money, meaning the rich were extremely rich so they were spending their money like it was nothing. In June 1889, author Andrew Carnegie wrote “The Gospel of Wealth,” which is an article that describes the responsibility of philanthropy by the new upper class of the self-made rich. Since it was the most money they ever had, they were spending it in the stacks.
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”.
“Wealth” also known as “The Gospel of Wealth” was written by Andrew Carnegie in 1889. The second industrial revolution was going on during this time; the 1880’s were all about new inventions and ideas, some which were becoming reality as well as expansions of bridges and railroad lines. Large economic growth followed these changes, as well as the dying off of Indians, outlaws, and cowboy’s, drawing up a new era. This source reflects the 1880s-1890s because of the industries that were booming and making certain people rich, Carnegie being one of those people. But he also mentions of how those who are rich should do what is right and help out those who can’t provide for themselves.
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness is the motto that the American people live by. It has been difficult to get to where we are now with the countless wars, conflicts, depressions, and over all the differences that many groups of individuals have. Along with many difficulties that our government has made, there are also many positive decisions that the government has made to help further our economy. In the Gilded Age which was from 1880 to 1929 the United States was in the mindset that the average American, who was poor and struggling to make ends meet, is able to become rich.
One of the many Gospel of Wealth advocates was Andrew Carnegie, 1835-1919, who was an industrialist who emigrated from Scotland to American in 1848 (Wall, ANBO). Carnegie’s “Wealth” written in 1889
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.
