Carnegie+Gospel+q&a


 * Andrew Carnegie: “The Gospel of Wealth” (1889) – A Close Reading **

Andrew Carnegie, "Wealth," //North American Review,// 148, no. 391 (June 1889): 653, 657­62. Bannister, Robert. “North American Review. Wealth.” //American Intellectual History//. Swarthmore, 27 June 1995. Web. 27 July 2012.
 * Original: **
 * Retrieved from: **
 * ** Text ** || ** Question ** ||
 * The problem of our age is the administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in **harmonious** relationship.

The conditions of human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years. In former days there was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief and those of his **retainers**. . . . The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us to­day measures the change which has come with civilization.

This change, however, is not to be **deplored**, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, **nay** //[archaic; not only that but also]//, essential for the progress of the race, that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so. Much better this great irregularity than universal **squalor**. Without wealth there can be no **Maecenas** [//this is an allusion to Rome//, //he was a wealthy patron of the arts//]. The "good old times" were not good old times. Neither master nor servant was as well situated then as today. A relapse to old conditions would be disastrous to both - not the least so to him who serves - and would sweep away civilization with it....   .. .    We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the best interests of the race are promoted, but which inevitably gives wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they exist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question then arises - and, if the foregoing be correct, it is the only question with which we have to deal-What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few? And it is of this great question that I believe I offer the true solution. It will be understood that fortunes are here spoken of, not moderate sums saved by many years of effort, the returns from which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families. This is not wealth, but only **competence** //[adequacy; possession of required skills]//, which it should be the aim of all to acquire.

There are but three **modes** in which **surplus** wealth can be disposed of. It can be left to the families of the **decedents**; or it can be **bequeathed** for **public purposes**; or, finally, it can be administered during their lives by its possessors. Under the first and second modes most of the wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied.

Let us in turn consider each of these modes. The first is the most **injudicious**. In **monarchial** countries, the estates and the greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first son, that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought that his name and title are to descend to succeeding generations **unimpaired**. The condition of this class in Europe to­day teaches the **futility** of such hopes or ambitions. The successors have become impoverished through their **follies** //[absurd or foolish action]// or from the fall in the value of land.... Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means. . . .   As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses, it may be said that this is only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead before it becomes of much good in the world.... The cases are not few in which the real object sought by the **testator** is not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes are **thwarted** //[to prevent something]//....

The growing **disposition** //[changing of thought patterns]// to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a **salutary** change in public opinion.... Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be **deprived** of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death, the state marks its **condemnation** //of// the selfish millionaire's unworthy life.

It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the state, and by all means such taxes should be **graduated** //[divided into stages]//, beginning at nothing upon **moderate** //[not large, or too small]// sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell. . . . This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being by far the most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this policy would sap the root of enterprise and **render** //[to make]// men less anxious to **accumulate**, for, to the class whose ambition it is to leave great fortunes and be talked about after their death, it will attract even more attention, and, indeed, be a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the state from their fortunes.

There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes: but in this way we have the true **antidote** //[something that reduces effects or helps solve a problem]// for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the **reconciliation** //[ending of conflict]// of the rich and the poor - a reign of harmony - another ideal, differing, indeed from that of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. . . .   This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial result for the community - the man of wealth thus becoming the sole 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.

If we consider what results flow from the **Cooper Institute** [a philanthropic organization], for instance, to the best portion of the race in New York not possessed of means, and compare these with those which would have arisen for the good of the masses from an equal sum distributed by Mr. Cooper in his lifetime in the form of wages, which is the highest form of distribution, being for work done and not for charity, we can form some estimate of the possibilities for the improvement of the race which lie embedded in the present law of the **accumulation** of wealth. Much of this sum if distributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the **indulgence** of appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether even the part put to the best use, that of adding to the comforts of the home, would have yielded results for the race, as a race, at all comparable to those which are flowing and are to flow from the Cooper Institute from generation to generation. Let the advocate of violent or radical change ponder well this thought.

We might even go so far as to take another instance, that of Mr. Tilden's bequest of five millions of dollars for a free library in the city of New York, but in referring to this one cannot help saying involuntarily, how much better if Mr. Tilden had devoted the last years of his own life to the proper administration of this immense sum; in which case neither legal contest nor any other cause of delay could have interfered with his aims. But let us assume that Mr. Tilden's millions finally become the means of giving to this city a noble public library, where the treasures of the world contained in books will be open to all forever, without money and without price. Considering the good of that part of the race which congregates in and around Manhattan Island, would its permanent benefit have been better promoted had these millions been allowed to circulate in small sums through the hands of the masses? Even the most strenuous advocate of Communism must entertain a doubt upon this subject. Most of those who think will probably entertain no doubt whatever. . . .   Thus is the problem of Rich and Poor to be solved. The laws of accumulation will be left free; the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; **entrusted** //[to make another responsible]// for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself. The best minds will thus have reached a stage in the development of the race which it is clearly seen that there is no mode of disposing of surplus wealth creditable to thoughtful and earnest men into whose hands it flows save by using it year by year for the general good. This day already dawns. But a little while, and although, without incurring the pity of their fellows, men may die sharers in great business enterprises from which their capital cannot be or has not been withdrawn, and is left chiefly at death for public uses, yet the man who dies leaving behind many millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away " unwept, unhonored, and unsung," no matter to what uses he leaves the **dross** //[something that is worthless]// which he cannot take with him. Of such as these the public verdict will then be: "The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced."

Such, in my opinion, is the true Gospel concerning Wealth, obedience to which is destined some day to solve the problem of the Rich and the Poor, and to bring ' Peace on earth, among men Good-Will." ||
 * 1) **What is the “age” Carnegie is talking about?**


 * 1) ** W ****hat is a “harmonious relationship”?**


 * 1) **What does Carnegie mean by “the administration of wealth”?**


 * 1) **What is the “...change which has come with civilization” that Carnegie alludes to here?**


 * 1) **//Wh//****at is Carnegie saying about this change and “civilization”?**


 * 1) **What is “this change” that Carnegie refers to in the first sentence of the paragraph to the left?**


 * 1) **Carnegie makes a number of points in this paragraph; explain each of these (there should be about five or six).**


 * 1) **What is the “condition of affairs” in the first sentence here, and what are the “best interests” which Carnegie states this promotes?**


 * 1) **Carnegie states, “...the laws upon which Civilization is founded have thrown it {wealth} into the hands of the few...” What is he claiming are these “laws”? What does “law” mean in this context?**


 * 1) **What is the main question that Carnegie is posing here?**


 * 1) **What differences between types of wealth does Carnegie define?**


 * 1) **What is “surplus wealth”?**


 * 1) **What are the two most common things that happen to “surplus wealth” after a person dies, according to Carnegie?**


 * 1) **What does Carnegie mean by inheriting wealth is a “burden” to male children? What evidence does he provide for this?**


 * 1) **Why does Carnegie believe that wives and daughters should receive moderate “allowances”?**


 * 16.****Rewrite the last sentence in the paragraph to the left so that it isn’t a double negative… i.e. put it in the positive! Or, explain what the last sentence means.**


 * 1) ** Why does Carnegie believe that there should be a tax on “...large estates left at death...”? **


 * 1) **What did Carnegie mean by “...such taxes should be graduated…”?**


 * 19.****Ultimately, what did Carnegie hope the effect of a tax at death would be?**


 * 20.****In the paragraph to the left, Carnegie addresses a criticism that might be made against this argument. What criticism is this, and how does he address it?** ac


 * 1) **What is Carnegie saying is the, “…duty of the man of wealth...”?**


 * 1) **What is Carnegie saying is another, alternative mode of dealing with excess wealth?**


 * 1) **Why does Carnegie consider this mode less desirable?**


 * 1) **What were Mr. Tilden’s actions and why does Carnegie disagree with them?**

**25.****In this last paragraph Carnegie summarizes his argument. What main points does he review?**


 * 1) **Why does Carnegie consider his plan a “gospel”?** ||