Was Andrew Carnegie a hero? Directions



Download 87.41 Kb.
Date20.04.2016
Size87.41 Kb.

United States History

Unit 5


Name:__________________________________________

Date:__________________________ Period:________


Was Andrew Carnegie a hero?

http://www.biography.com/imported/images/biography/images/profiles/c/andrew-carnegie-9238756-1-402.jpg


Directions: In order to practice some serious critical thinking in history, we are going to do a short, in-depth study of Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie was a wealthy steel mill owner in the U.S. at the end of the 19th century. Some believe he was a great businessman and philanthropist, but others believe he was a robber baron who mistreated his workers and used his money to control people. You are going to decide for yourself. After reading primary and secondary sources, you will decide whether or not you think Andrew Carnegie deserved to be called a hero. Each day you will earn points for your work and by the end of this exercise, you will be a Carnegie expert!

Day 1

Introduction to Andrew Carnegie Secondary Source Reading
Directions: While you read the secondary source on pages 13-15, fill in the notes about the appropriate section.


Context

Life Before Steel

  1. What was life like in the U.S. after the Civil War was over?



  1. What area could possibly offer the best place to find a hero?




  1. What famous business owners built empires at this time?




  1. Who was the most famous of these business owners?

  1. What was Carnegie’s childhood like?



  1. Why did his family come to the United States?




  1. What kind of jobs did the young Carnegie have?


  1. How did he get a job with the railroad?



  1. What did Carnegie invest his money in?




  1. How was Carnegie involved in helping the Union during the Civil War?


  1. After he got out of the military, what did he say his goal was in his 1868 letter to himself?




Life With Steel

Life After Steel

  1. Who did Carnegie meet in England?




  1. What technique had he developed?




  1. What did Carnegie’s goal become?




  1. How many steps were there in making steel?




  1. Where did Carnegie buy land to build his own mill?



  1. To whom did Carnegie sell his massive U.S. Steel Company?




  1. How much money did Carnegie get himself from this sale?




  1. What did Carnegie hope for the future of America after WWI?



Grade _______/10



Day 2

Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” Document Analysis
Directions: Read the attached secondary and primary sources (on page 16) and answer the following questions.
Introduction (Secondary Source)

  1. Where was Carnegie from originally? ____________________

  2. What two industries did he become involved in as a businessman? ______________________ ____________________

  3. What did Carnegie believe industry and technology could do for people?



  1. What did Carnegie do with much of his wealth before he died?



  1. What is “Social Darwinism”?



  1. According to Darwinist William Graham Sumner, how much should the government aid its people?



  1. How did Carnegie differ from this belief?

Primary Source Document: Carnegie, Andrew. “Wealth.” North American Review, 1889.

  1. According to Carnegie, what is “the duty of the man of wealth”?

    1. According to Carnegie, should a rich person show off? (circle one) YES NO

    2. According to Carnegie, what should a rich person do for those “dependent” on them?



    1. According to Carnegie, what should a rich person create with “all surplus revenues?



  1. According to Carnegie, to what kind of person should a wealthy person give charity?



  1. What is almsgiving? (Use the classroom dictionary.)



    1. According to Carnegie, does Carnegie believe in almsgiving in general? YES NO

    2. According to Carnegie, does Carnegie believe in giving temporary assistance in certain cases?

YES NO

  1. According to Carnegie, what does a “true reformer” consider when giving money away?



  1. According to Carnegie, how will a person “who dies” without giving money away end up?

Opinion

  1. What parts of Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth do you agree with?



  1. What parts of Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth do you disagree with?



  1. With big business (trusts) growing, waves of immigrants to compete for jobs, and weak unions, do you think poor Americans at the turn of the 20th century needed help (alms) or assistance from businesses?

YES NO

  1. Businessmen like Carnegie were made their millions in part by cutting wages, and fighting unions, which lowered their workers’ standard of living. Without that money, maybe Carnegie would never have been able to make the amount of donations he did. Do you think all of Carnegie’s donations to charity justified his treatment of his workers? Yes or No? Why or why not?

Grade: _______/10

Day 3

Document Comparison--Was Andrew Carnegie a hero?
Directions: In order to answer the question “Was Andrew Carnegie a hero?”, we must examine different perspectives. In order to practice comparing different perspectives, we’re going to read a document that supports Carnegie’s heroism, one that questions it and another that you will decide where it fits. Use the documents on pages 17, 18 and 19 to answer the questions. For more information about Tucker, go to pages 20-21.


Document B.

Andrew Carnegie “Wealth”

Document I.

Historical Statistics of the United States

Document P.

William Jewett Tucker “The Gospel of Wealth”

Yes, Carnegie was a hero.

?

No, Carnegie was not a hero.

  1. What kind of homes are there today according to Carnegie?


  1. Does Carnegie think it’s better to have no rich people or at least some rich people?




  1. What does Carnegie says the past was like?



  1. According to Carnegie, what law caused people to have more material possessions?



  1. Overall, how does Carnegie argue that his work (and the work of other businessmen) have helped all people?




  1. Based on the daily rate of inflation, $1.81 in 1892 would equal about $40 today. A worker today making $40/day would make about $10,000 /year if they were given weekends off.

  2. What information does this chart provide about workers?


  1. How did steel workers hours and pay compare to other workers?



  1. According to the Note, how did Carnegie’s daily rate of pay compare to his own steel workers?



  1. Do you think this document supports Carnegie being a hero or not? Why?



  1. What is charity? (Use a classroom dictionary.)


  1. Does Tucker think giving away money does anyone justice? YES NO

  2. What word proves that your answer is correct?



  1. What word does Tucker use to describe millionaires giving away lots of money?



  1. What will happen to people’s “self-respect” if the rich just give the community gifts?




  1. According to Tucker, 2/3 of the property in the U.S. is owned by 1/______th of the population.




  1. Overall, what does Tucker say is the problem in America?



What do you think?

  • Is it beneficial for society for business owners to become wealthy because their wealth means we all have better and more possessions? Why or why not?




  • Should workers receive a bigger share of a business owners’ profits? Why or why not?




  • Do you think it’s unfair that there is a big income gap between the wealthy and the poor? Why or why not?




  • Is it fair that business owners become wealthy because they are the owners? Why or why not?

Grade: _______/20



Day 4 & 5

Document Jigsaw & Grouping

Directions: Now that you’ve gotten a taste of different perspectives on Carnegie, you are going to dive deeper into the different views on his legacy. In a small group, you will examine a series of documents listed in the chart below. Read each document and answer the questions below to demonstrate your understanding of each document. You will decide for each document whether it supports the idea of Carnegie being a hero or not. You will also be given a piece of butcher paper. Write at the top of the paper, “Was Andrew Carnegie a hero?” On the left, write “Yes” and on the right, write “No.” Cut out the documents from the document packet and tape them to your butcher paper under the answer to the question “Was Andrew Carnegie a hero?” that you think the document supports. The documents are on pages 23-31.


Document

What is the title of this document?

What type of document is this? (photo, letter, newspaper)

What is the main idea of this document?

According to this Document, was Carnegie a hero? Yes or No? Why?

Document A












Document C












Document D












Document E














Document

What is the title of this document?

What type of document is this? (photo, letter, newspaper)

What does this document say about Carnegie?

According to this Document, was Carnegie a hero? Yes or No? Why?

Document G











Document H









Document J










Document K










Document L












Document N












Document O












Grade _______/20
Day 6

Writing a Thesis Statement Based on Evidence
Directions: Now that you’ve read a variety of opinions about Carnegie and you’ve grouped your documents, you’re ready to state your answer to the question “Was Andrew Carnegie a hero?” Look at your butcher paper and the documents you put on the YES and the NO sides. Re-examine your document chart from the previous two days. Decide whether you are going to answer the question Yes or No overall.
Remember, that a thesis has to have at least 4 parts (Subject + Verb + Argument + Evidence).


  • Simple YES Thesis Example


Andrew Carnegie is a hero because he was generous with his money.

Subject=Andrew Carnegie

Verb=is

Argument=a hero

Evidence= because he was generous with his money.


  1. What Documents support this thesis? ____________________________________________________________________________________




  • Simple NO Thesis Example


Andrew Carnegie is not a hero because he failed to share his profits with his workers.

Subject=Andrew Carnegie

Verb=is

Argument= not a hero

Evidence= because he failed to share his profits with his workers.


  1. What Documents support this thesis? _____________________________________________________________________________________


Because you have your butcher paper, you’re going to bump it up a notch. You are going to write a thesis with a counter argument and a main argument.


  • Complex YES Thesis Example


Although some view Andrew Carnegie as a “robber baron” because he failed to share his profits with his own workers, Carnegie was overall a hero because he was generous with his money.

Counter Argument= Although some view Andrew Carnegie as a “robber baron” because he failed to share his profits with his workers,

Main Argument= Carnegie was overall a hero because he was generous with his money.


  • Complex NO Thesis Example


Although some view Andrew Carnegie as a hero because he was generous with his money, Carnegie was not a hero because he failed to share his profits with his own workers.

Counter Argument= Although some view Andrew Carnegie as a hero because he was generous with his money

Main Argument= Carnegie was not a hero because he failed to share his profits with his own workers.



  1. Write your simple 4 part thesis statement here:

Andrew Carnegie

is

a hero

not a hero

(circle one)

because

Subject

Verb

Argument

Evidence




  1. Did you answer the question “Was Andrew Carnegie a hero?” YES or NO? __________




  1. Which documents do you have taped to your butcher paper to the side (YES or NO) that you picked?

________________________________________________


  1. Write your complex thesis statement with counterargument here:

Although some view Carnegie as _____________________________________________because he __________________________________________________

Carnegie is ________________________________________________ because

______________________________________________________________________.

Counter Argument

Main Argument




  1. What documents support your counter argument?____________________________________________________________




  1. What documents support your main argument?_______________________________________________________________ (These should be the same documents you listed under question number 5.)

Grade _____/10

Day 7 & 8

Writing an APEC paragraph

Directions: Now that you’ve written your argument, you are ready to use the documents to back yourself up. You are going to write two paragraphs to prove your thesis statement is correct. In the first paragraph, you will explore the counter argument using the documents. In the second paragraph, you will support your main argument using the documents.
The easiest way to write these paragraphs is to use a structure called APEC.

A=Assertion (This is what the Yes or the No documents seem to assert about Carnegie.)

P=Proof (This is the proof or evidence taken directly from the documents that support the assertion.)

(At the end of your proof, you must cite which document you used with the document letter and author. You should use at least one document in your paragraph, but it’s good to use more than one.)



E=Explanation(This is where you explain in your own words what you think the proof from the document shows.)

C=Connection (This is where you connect your proof and explanation back to your thesis. )



  • APEC Paragraph YES Example


YES Thesis=Although some view Andrew Carnegie as a “robber baron” because he failed to share his profits with his own workers, Carnegie was overall a hero because he was generous with his money.
Counter Argument Paragraph:

Like many other industrialists and business owners at the end of the 19th century, Andrew Carnegie became incredibly wealthy while his workers struggled to join the middle class. (Assertion) In 1892, the average American steel worker worked 10.67 hours a day and only earned $1.81 for that day’s work (Document I, Bureau of the Census). Comparatively, Andrew Carnegie would have earned approximately $92,000 a day (Document I, Bureau of the Census). (Proof) These statistics show that Carnegie earned many, many more times as much money as his workers. (Explanation) As a result of this wide gap in Carnegie and his worker’s earnings, many people, including the workers at the Homestead steel mill who went on strike in 1894, believe Carnegie was not a hero, but a “robber baron” (Document H, Garland). (Connection)


***Identify the APEC parts of the following main argument paragraph for the same example.

  1. Put an A next to the assertion.

  2. Put [ ] brackets and a P next to the proof for the assertion.

  3. Circle and put an E next to the explanation of the proof.

  4. Underline and put a C next to the connection sentence which refers back to the thesis.


Main Argument Paragraph:

Though clearly, many cite Carnegie’s treatment of his workers as evidence that he was an out of touch businessman, his generosity with his wealth demonstrates that he was a hero with a long term vision. Carnegie believed that it was his duty to set “an example of modest, unostentatious living” and to use his wealth to “produce the most beneficial results for the community” (Document I, Carnegie). In order to help the most people, Carnegie gave away millions of his own money to build universities, concert venues and libraries (Document I, Carnegie). His “Gospel of Wealth” was a clear instruction manual for how the wealthy men of his era could make a lasting impact that would benefit countless Americans well into the future, not just his own workers. Andrew Carnegie deserves credit for thinking beyond his own lifetime and using his wealth to benefit people for generations and thus, he should be called a hero.


Now you’re almost ready to write your own APEC paragraphs. First keep in mind the following tips!


  1. Use strong analysis and judgment words:

Reveals sheds light on exemplified highlights

Demonstrates significant because indicated portrayed

Illustrates implied symbolized depicted
Controversial imperative primary dramatic

Provocative precarious deliberate inevitable



More importantly as caused by



  1. Do NOT say I, me, you, we, us or our.

  2. Do NOT ask questions as if you’re talking to the reader.

  3. Do NOT use the words things, stuff, bad, good, a lot, also, never, always or completely.

Writing your APEC Paragraphs

  1. Rewrite your complex thesis from page 9.




  1. Rewrite from page 9 what documents support your counter argument here: __________________________________________________



  1. Which 1 or 2 documents from the counter argument, do you feel comfortable quoting from and explaining? __________ __________



  1. Rewrite from page 9 what documents support your main argument here:

__________________________________________________



  1. Which 1 or 2 documents from the main argument, do you feel comfortable quoting from and explaining? __________ __________



Write your counter argument paragraph here:

First, write your Assertion sentence for your counter argument.


Then, write the Proof taken directly from the 1 or 2 documents you selected for the counter argument.
Explain how this 1 (or 2) document(s) demonstrate(s) the counter argument in your own words.


Finally, write a sentence to Connect your proof and explanation back to your thesis.

Write your main argument paragraph here:

First, write your Assertion sentence for your main argument.


Then, write the Proof taken directly from the 1 or 2 documents you selected for the main argument.
Explain how this 1 (or 2) document(s) demonstrate(s) the main argument in your own words.


Finally, write a sentence to Connect your proof and explanation back to your thesis.

APEC Writing Grading Rubric

Category

Excellent (9-10)

Satisfactory (7-8)

Needs Improvement (6)

Not present (0)

Counter Argument Paragraph

Contains all aspects of APEC and is clearly worded. One to two documents are properly cited and explained.

Contains all aspects of APEC but is not entirely clear. Only one document is cited and it may not be correctly explained.

Contains only some aspects of APEC and is unclear. One document is mentioned but not cited and it may not be explained.

Missing most aspects of APEC. No documents used and no explanation is provided.

Main Argument Paragraph

Contains all aspects of APEC and is clearly worded. One to two documents are properly cited and explained.

Contains all aspects of APEC but is not entirely clear. Only one document is cited and it may not be correctly explained.

Contains only some aspects of APEC and is unclear. One document is mentioned but not cited and it may not be explained.

Missing most aspects of APEC. No documents used and no explanation is provided.

Grade ______/20

Excerpts from:

The 19th-century critique of big philanthropy.

By David Nasaw | Posted Friday, Nov. 10, 2006

Slate.com




Warren Buffett's announcement in June that he was giving $31 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was greeted with near universal acclaim. About 120 years ago, when Andrew Carnegie declared in his "Gospel of Wealth" essays that he was going to give away his entire fortune and asserted that it was the duty of other rich men to give away theirs, his announcement provoked as much criticism as praise. Labor leaders condemned Carnegie for giving away money that did not rightfully belong to him. Prominent churchmen, including Methodist Bishop Hugh Price Hughes, characterized him as "an anti-Christian phenomenon, a social monstrosity, and a grave political peril."
Hughes insisted that millionaires, even those who agreed to give away their fortunes, were "the unnatural product of artificial social regulations." He believed that Carnegie's accumulation of millions had come at the expense of his less fortunate countrymen. "Millionaires at one end of the scale involved paupers at the other end, and even so excellent a man as Mr. Carnegie is too dear at that price," he argued. His point was well-taken. One doesn't have to a Socialist—and Bishop Hughes certainly was not —to wonder whether a more equitable distribution of wealth might be better for society than the idiosyncrasies of large-scale philanthropy.
Questions about Carnegie's millions multiplied over the years, especially after the summer of 1892, when armed Pinkerton guards intervened to break a strike at his Homestead steel mill. Workingmen on both sides of the Atlantic questioned whether the Pittsburgh steelmaker's huge charitable donations would have been better spent on higher wages, improved working conditions, and an eight- rather than 12-hour workday. Carnegie responded in a speech in Pittsburgh that he kept wages low to remain competitive, and that even had it been possible for him to share some of his profits with his workers, it would have been neither "justifiable or wise" to do so. "Trifling sums given to each every week or month ... would be frittered away, nine times out of ten, in things which pertain to the body and not to the spirit; upon richer food and drink, better clothing, more extravagant living, which are beneficial neither to rich nor poor." The lower the costs of labor, the higher the profits. Far better, in his view, to squeeze money from workers' paychecks, aggregate it, and give back to the community in the form of public libraries and concert halls.
Yet by 1915, the outcry against the efforts of Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and Russell Sage to protect and sanitize what many saw as their ill-gotten fortunes had swelled to the point where Congress and the executive branch agreed to organize a federal Commission on Industrial Relations. Its charge was to investigate whether self-perpetuating private foundations posed "a menace to the Republic's future." The private foundation, it was claimed, was a profoundly anti-democratic institution, one that concentrated too much wealth—and power—in the hands of trustees who were neither elected nor accountable to the public. Frank Walsh, the chairman of the commission, recalled the complaint of a Colorado coal miner about $250,000 of Rockefeller Foundation money that had been allocated for a retreat for migratory birds. That money, the miner insisted, had come from the labor of men like him who should have had a say in how it was spent. "He protested against this apportionment of the wealth to the migratory birds," Walsh remembered. "He said he wanted first to see established a safe retreat for his babies and his wife."
In the era of industrial capitalism, it was far easier to trace the movement of dollars from exploited factory workers to the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations. It is infinitely more difficult in the age of financial capitalism to follow the money trail that leads to the cash and securities that today's billionaires have accumulated. Still, there are significant similarities in the way yesterday's millionaires and today's billionaires accumulated their fortunes. And it is no less important for us than it was for the politicians, professors, labor leaders, and church leaders a century ago to question how it came to be that so much money (millions then, billions today) ended up in so few hands.
One similarity in the process of wealth accumulation then and now is the importance of luck. Today, as in the 19th century, it takes a great deal of it to accumulate a large fortune. As Jacob Weisberg wrote in June, Warren Buffett calls himself "a member of the lucky sperm club." Carnegie made much the same point. He emphasized his good fortune in having moved to Pittsburgh with his family at precisely the moment the city was becoming a center of iron and steel manufacturing because of its ideal location on the East-West railway network and its proximity to iron ore and coal deposits. Both men recognized that they had not earned their fortunes by themselves and thus had no right to spend them on themselves or on their families. As Carnegie put it, it was not any individual—talented and hard-working though he might be—but the community that was the true source of wealth. And it was to the community that the millionaire's dollars should be returned.
A second similarity that drives the accumulation of wealth in the ages both of Carnegie and Buffett is the role of what Bishop Hughes called "artificial social regulations." Hughes was referring to the government regulations—high protective tariffs on steel imports—that contributed to Carnegie's fortune. Protective tariffs made it possible for Carnegie and other steel manufacturers to price their goods comparatively high without having to worry about foreign competition. Carnegie and his fellow millionaires were assisted as well by the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1895 that the federal income tax was unconstitutional; by the lack of minimum or living-wage laws; by the absence of legal protection for organized labor; and by the government's unwillingness to stop employers from hiring private armies of Pinkerton strike breakers.
Today's megarich philanthropists have similarly been helped along by an absurdly low federal minimum wage, the lack of enforceable living-wage laws, and the precipitous drop in income-tax rates that began during the Reagan years. In 1954, when Eisenhower was president, the maximum tax rate was 87 percent of taxable income for individuals, 52 percent for corporations, and 25 percent for long-term capital gains. By 1988, the last year of the Reagan administration, the rates had fallen to 28 percent for individuals, 35 percent for corporations, and 28 percent for long-term capital gains. This year, the highest tax rates will be 35 percent for individuals and corporations and only 15 percent for long-term capital gains.

We have grown so accustomed to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few—and the deletion of "progressive" from what used to be called the progressive income tax—that we no longer ask where Gates' and Buffett's money comes from. Instead, we celebrate the fact that they and a few others like them have given away their fortunes to good causes. Shouldn't we also be asking, as Carnegie's critics did 120 years ago, about the health of a society that looks to handouts from the wealthy to alleviate poverty, cure disease, and make the schools work?


Philanthropic foundations will certainly never accomplish what they set out to do without a greater infusion of dollars. There is, however, no evidence that such dollars are forthcoming from Buffett's and Gates' fellow billionaires. On the contrary, the richest Americans appear to have cut back their spending on philanthropies. In 1995, estates worth $20 million or more gave away 25.3 percent of their wealth; by 2004, that figure had dropped to 20.8 percent. At the same time, the percentage of $20 million-plus estates that gave nothing to philanthropy increased more than 5 percent, to a total of 47.7 percent. Think about it—more than half the families worth more than $20 million do not give a dime to charity of any kind.
Even if all the billionaires somehow followed Buffett's example and gave their money to tax-free foundations, the growth of the foundation sector might be a mixed blessing. No one wants to criticize generosity or look a gift horse in the mouth. But there are large questions of social policy here that go unconfronted. Private foundations can do virtually anything they please with their billions, tax-free and with little regulation. I might applaud the work of the Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Gates foundations. But I might be considerably less enthusiastic about a torrent of private money unleashed on educational campaigns to outlaw abortion and birth control, defund the public schools, abolish inheritance and income taxes, end gun control, and withdraw funding from the United Nations and international organizations. You might disagree; either way neither of us should be sanguine about a future in which billionaires play a larger and larger role in determining social policy without any say from the rest of us.
So, pardon me for clapping with one hand only when Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and the billionaires who follow their example preserve their fortunes by transferring them to private foundations. I'd rather see their gifts greeted with the same scrutiny visited a century ago upon the donations made by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. William Jewett Tucker, a reverend and future president of Dartmouth College, put it this way in 1891: Critiquing Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth" he declared that a society could make no greater mistake than asking charity to do the work of social justice.





Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page