The Gospel Of Wealth Summary

Class,

Andrew Carnegie’s article published, December 1889 in the New York American Review called “The Gospel of Wealth”, gave much to be contemplated. The central idea of his article was that a man was wealthy for one of two reasons. He was either selected by Gods will to be so rich (an idea similar to “the divine rights of kings”) or because of ones “natural talents”, stemming from the “survival-of-the-fittest…theories of English philosopher Herbert Spencer and Yale professor William Graham Sumner.” (The American Pageant, 15th edition, Vol.2) He believed that with this wealth came a moral obligation to spend such money on “public purposes, from which the masses reap benefit.” (The Gospel of Wealth, New York Carnegie Corporation, New York)

Ideally, it’s a good concept that works if all the wealthy use their free will to follow the idea, without corruption and no one minded a socialistic government.

However, it is ironic that men professing to be backed by God conducted business the way they did. For example, Carnegie threatened J.P. Morgan to a ruining if he would not by him out of his business at a hefty sum of “$400 million”. (The American Pageant 15th edition, Vol.2) When reading his thoughts there was a great conflict of interest. His following thoughts amplified this.

“The law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race (humankind), because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department.”

“…talent for organizations and management is rare among men is proved by the fact that it invariably secures for its possessor enormous rewards, no matter what laws or conditions.” (The Gospel of Wealth, New York Carnegie Corporation, New York)

The corruption of wealthy mean was evident. Corruption was found amongst the railroad promoters such as Jay Gould. These men among the wealthiest called the shots and where able to do so because they took advantage of people. When they were “stock watering” the cattle. The price for cattle and assets went up. The rich were gaining profit and the “public” or poor were being “trampled”. “Bought and sold in public life”, by these “Railroad Kings”. (The American Pageant 15th edition,

Vol.2)
A sentiment of respect should be given to those believing to be naturally selected in this idea simply because, in theory, they would be adapting in order to get ahead, even if that meant being corrupt. They would be taking every opportunity afforded to them to make advancement unethically or not.
Andrew Carnegie and men alike may have been generous in giving but they do not seem like humble men, from my prospective, when all accounts are considered I feel greed for a good deal and prominence motivated these men, not their Godly duty?
Thank you for your time,
Amanda Williams